Pre-cognizance hearing under the new criminal procedure is mandatory before cognizance of post-commencement money-laundering complaints.

A prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 filed after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 commenced requires a pre-cognizance hearing under the proviso to Section 223(1); cognizance taken without that opportunity is described as legally unsustainable and must be recommenced after hearing the accused. The notes also state that revision does not absolutely bar inherent jurisdiction in exceptional matters involving liberty, and that compliant arrest and production procedures validate pre-cognizance remand. Remand beyond the statutory fifteen-day limit does not itself require immediate release where no prejudice is shown; bail remains subject to the applicable money-laundering bail provisions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition invoking inherent and supervisory jurisdiction was maintainable despite the availability of revision; (ii) Whether the arrest and pre-cognizance remands were illegal for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure; (iii) Whether cognizance of the prosecution complaint could be taken without affording the accused a hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; (iv) Whether remands exceeding fifteen days warranted release on bail.

Issue (i): Whether the petition invoking inherent and supervisory jurisdiction was maintainable despite the availability of revision.

Analysis: The availability of a revisional remedy does not create an absolute bar to inherent jurisdiction. The nomenclature of proceedings is not decisive, and inherent powers may be exercised where required to address exceptional circumstances affecting fundamental rights and personal liberty.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest and pre-cognizance remands were illegal for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The chronology established that the petitioner was formally arrested during authorised jail examination, produced within twenty-four hours before the Duty Magistrate, and thereafter produced before the Special Court. The procedure under Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as complied with.

Conclusion: The arrest and consequent pre-cognizance remands were not illegal, against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether cognizance of the prosecution complaint could be taken without affording the accused a hearing under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: Sections 44, 46 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply the criminal procedure law to proceedings before the Special Court. For a complaint filed after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force, Chapter XVI, including Section 223, applies to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of that Act. The proviso to Section 223(1) prohibits cognizance without an opportunity of hearing to the accused.

Conclusion: The cognizance order made without a pre-cognizance hearing was legally unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether remands exceeding fifteen days warranted release on bail.

Analysis: Upon setting aside cognizance, custody was governed by Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A remand for two months at one time contravened the statutory fifteen-day limit. However, the petitioner had not objected at the relevant times, had suffered no demonstrated prejudice, and continued to be in judicial custody without any bail order. Bail in a money-laundering case requires consideration under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The excess-period remand did not entitle the petitioner to immediate release; the petitioner may seek bail before the competent court, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The cognizance process must recommence only after affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, while custody and any claim for bail remain to be addressed in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 filed after commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requires a pre-cognizance hearing under the proviso to Section 223(1).

---