BNSS Section 223: Supreme Court Rules Prior Hearing of Accused Mandatory Even in PMLA Cases, Terms Violations 'Void Ab Initio'

Can a court take cognizance of a criminal complaint without hearing the accused first? In a landmark judgment (Parvinder Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026), the Supreme Court of India dropped a massive ruling on how the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 interacts with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

This case settles a massive debate: Does the new criminal law give you a mandatory right to be heard before a judge officially accepts a case against you? Let’s break it down!

🕒 Timeline of Events (The Context)

July 2023: An ECIR (money laundering case) is registered against Parvinder Singh.

April 2024: Parvinder Singh is arrested.

June 24, 2024: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) files a formal prosecution complaint in the Special Court. The Court registers it and sets a date.

July 1, 2024: The BNSS officially takes effect, replacing the old Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

July 2, 2024: The Special Court officially takes cognizance of the offence without giving Parvinder Singh a hearing.

⚖️ The Legal Battle

Parvinder Singh moved the court, arguing that under Section 223(1) of the BNSS, a judge cannot take cognizance of a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.

The ED’s Argument (The Respondent):

They argued that because the complaint was filed before July 1, 2024, the old CrPC rules should apply (under the savings clause, Section 531).
They also claimed that PMLA is a "special standalone law," so these general BNSS rules shouldn't interfere.

The High Court’s Initial View:

The Uttarakhand High Court initially agreed with the ED, saying the proceedings started under the old law, so the new BNSS rule didn't apply.

🏛️ What the Supreme Court Decided (The Core Ruling)

The Supreme Court completely overturned the High Court's decision and ruled in favor of the accused. Here are the key takeaways from Justices M.M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh:

1. Hearing the Accused is a "Substantive Right"

The Court held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS is not just a minor technical rule; it is a substantive right linked to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Key Quote: "Cognizance of an offence taken by a Court without due compliance of the aforestated proviso would be void ab initio."

2. Merely Filing a Case is Not an "Inquiry"

The ED argued that filing the case in June started an "inquiry" under the old law. The Supreme Court rejected this, clarifying that ministerial acts (like numbering a complaint or scheduling a date) do not count as a judicial inquiry. An inquiry only begins when a judge applies their judicial mind. Because the judge applied his mind on July 2 (after BNSS was active), BNSS rules apply.

3. BNSS Rules Apply Fully to PMLA

The Court re-affirmed that Sections 200-205 of the CrPC (now Sections 223-228 of the BNSS) apply fully to money laundering (PMLA) cases because there is no conflict between the two acts on this matter

Follow on Social Media Youtube Link www.youtube.com/@SajjadHusainLawAssociates Facebook Page Link https://www.facebook.com/advocatesajjadofficial Insta Link https://www.instagram.com/sajjad_husain_law_associates/ Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/sajjad-husain-associates-law WhatsApp Link https://wa.me/message/MH5RUHZAUP2ID1 Google My Business Link https://wa.me/message/MH5RUHZAUP2ID1 Tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/dashboard Twitter Link https://twitter.com/home E-mail ID advocatesajjad@mail.com visit & contact detail www.sajjadhusainlawassociates.com E-Mail ID sajjadhusainlawassociates@gmail.com Advocate Chamber No. 515 Block C High Court Gomtinagar Lucknow UP India WhatsApp, IMO, Telegram & Calling No. 7080909786