Latest JudgementBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025

Interpretation and applicability of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in a money laundering case under PMLA.

Supreme Court of India·17 April 2025

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

17 April 2025

Judges

Justice Abhay Oka ⦁ Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Kushal Aggarwal (executive of a company), challenged a trial court order that took cognizance of a money laundering complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The complaint stemmed from a conviction related to the fraudulent acquisition of the Kesla North Coal Block in Chhattisgarh.
The trial court held that Section 223 of BNSS would not apply as the investigation commenced before BNSS came into force. The court also reasoned that the PMLA scheme did not provide the right for an accused to be heard at the cognizance stage, as the complaint was filed by a public servant in the discharge of official duties.
The petitioners contended that Section 223 of BNSS, which mandates a hearing for the accused before cognizance, should apply, and that the trial court’s order was incorrect.

Whether Section 223 of BNSS applies to complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), despite the complaint being filed before the BNSS came into force?
Whether Section 223 of BNSS, which requires the accused to be heard before cognizance, confers a substantive right or is just a procedural safeguard?
Whether the PMLA’s special procedure overrides the provisions of the BNSS and CrPC?

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s order to take cognizance of the complaint without providing an opportunity for the accused to be heard was incorrect.
Section 223 of BNSS confers a substantive right on the accused to seek a recall of the process issued by the court.
The Court stayed further proceedings and directed the issuance of a notice to address whether BNSS provisions or the CrPC should govern the cognizance stage in cases under PMLA.

This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal justice, particularly in ensuring that the accused’s right to be heard is respected before cognizance is taken.
The Court’s emphasis on Section 223 of BNSS as conferring a substantive right ensures that accused individuals are not subjected to unnecessary litigation and provides a mechanism to challenge the issuance of a process.
The case also highlights the interplay between BNSS, CrPC, and PMLA, raising important questions about how special procedural laws like PMLA intersect with general provisions under the CrPC and new legislation like BNSS.