Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026

The case arose from an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against the appellant in July 2023.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) filed a prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 PMLA on June 24, 2024.

The complaint was filed before the BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024.

However, the Special Court took cognizance of the complaint on July 2, 2024, after the BNSS became operational.

The Special Court took cognizance without granting the accused an opportunity of hearing under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS.

The appellant challenged the cognizance order before the Uttarakhand High Court.

The High Court rejected the challenge and upheld the cognizance order.

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court contending that Section 223(1) BNSS conferred a mandatory right of hearing before cognizance in complaint cases.

The ED argued that the PMLA is a standalone statute and the proceedings would continue under the old CrPC since the complaint had been filed before BNSS commenced.

The ED also contended that the accused had failed to show any prejudice caused by non-compliance with Section 223(1) BNSS.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.

The Court held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is mandatory in nature.

The bench observed that the provision confers a substantive right upon the accused to be heard before cognizance is taken in a complaint case.

The Court ruled that the safeguard forms part of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court clarified that the use of the word “shall” in Section 223(1) BNSS makes compliance mandatory.

The bench held that cognizance taken without following the mandatory hearing requirement would be void ab initio.

The Court rejected the ED’s argument that the accused must prove prejudice caused by denial of hearing.

The Supreme Court held that the defect is not a procedural irregularity but an illegality that vitiates the proceedings.

The Court further ruled that complaint procedure provisions under the BNSS apply to proceedings under the PMLA, as there is no inconsistency between the two statutes.

The bench relied upon earlier judgments including Tarsem Lal v. ED, Yash Tuteja v. Union of India, and Kaushal Kumar Agarwal v. ED.

The Court rejected the ED’s contention regarding retrospective application and clarified that the accused was merely claiming a substantive right available on the date cognizance was taken.

The Supreme Court held that mere filing or numbering of the complaint before July 1, 2024 did not amount to commencement of inquiry under Section 531 BNSS.

Consequently, the cognizance order dated July 2, 2024 was set aside.

The Special Court was directed to proceed afresh from the stage of cognizance after granting an opportunity of hearing to the accused within eight weeks.

The judgment significantly strengthens the procedural rights of accused persons under the newly enacted BNSS.

By treating Section 223(1) as a substantive safeguard linked to Article 21, the Court elevated the right of hearing into a constitutional protection.

The ruling reinforces the principle that fairness in criminal procedure cannot be sacrificed even in serious offences such as money laundering.

The Court correctly distinguished between a procedural irregularity and a jurisdictional illegality.

The judgment clarifies that denial of hearing before cognizance is not curable merely because no prejudice is shown.

The ruling is important because complaint-based prosecutions under statutes like the PMLA frequently involve cognizance without prior participation of the accused.

By holding that BNSS procedural safeguards apply to PMLA complaints, the Court ensured uniformity in criminal procedure.

The interpretation of Section 531 BNSS provides important guidance regarding transitional application of the new criminal laws.

The judgment protects accused persons from losing newly created substantive rights merely because a complaint was filed shortly before the BNSS commenced.

Overall, the ruling is a landmark precedent on fair trial rights, mandatory compliance with procedural safeguards, and the evolving framework under the BNSS.