Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 INSC 519
Bench – M.M. Sundresh and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Delivered on May 19, 2026
Facts:
An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered against the appellant on July 24, 2023, and he was arrested on April 27, 2024. The Directorate of Enforcement (Respondent) filed a prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on June 24, 2024.
On the day of filing, the Special Court directed the complaint to be registered as a “miscellaneous case” and fixed a hearing for cognizance.
On July 1, 2024, the BNSS replaced the erstwhile CrPC.
On July 2, 2024, the Special Court took cognizance of the offence without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard.
The appellant filed for a recall of the cognizance order, arguing that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates a hearing for the accused before taking cognizance, was not followed.
The Special Court and subsequently the High Court of Uttarakhand rejected this plea, primarily holding that because the complaint was filed before July 1, the old CrPC (which had no such mandatory hearing provision) applied.
Issue: Whether the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS applies to a case where the prosecution complaint was filed prior to the commencement of the BNSS, but the act of taking cognizance occurred after the new law took effect.
Reasoning by Court:
Applicability of BNSS to PMLA: Sections 46, 65, and 71 of the PMLA establish that the general criminal procedure (now BNSS) applies to PMLA proceedings unless there is a specific inconsistency. The Court affirmed that Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS (formerly 200-205 CrPC) are applicable to PMLA complaints.
Mandatory Nature of Section 223(1): The Court held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, requiring an opportunity for the accused to be heard, is substantive in nature and a component of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The word “shall” in this proviso makes it mandatory, rendering any cognizance taken without such a hearing void ab initio.
Interpretation of Inquiry and Section 531: The Respondent argued that under the saving clause (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS), since an “inquiry” had started before July 1, the CrPC should apply. However, the Court ruled that the mere ministerial act of filing and numbering a complaint is not an “inquiry”. An inquiry involves the application of judicial mind, which only begins when the court takes cognizance.
Prospective Application: Since no “inquiry” or “trial” was pending as of July 1, 2024 (as cognizance had not yet been taken), the BNSS governed the court’s actions on July 2, 2024.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment and the Special Court’s cognizance order. The Special Court was directed to afford the appellant an opportunity of being heard and proceed from the stage of taking cognizance, completing the exercise within eight weeks.