TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a supplementary complaint could be filed against an accused already facing prosecution on the basis of the initial complaint in respect of the same occurrence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether cognizance could be taken a second time and process issued again on the supplementary complaint after cognizance had already been taken on the initial complaint.
Issue (i): Whether a supplementary complaint could be filed against an accused already facing prosecution on the basis of the initial complaint in respect of the same occurrence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 apply to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 insofar as they are not inconsistent with that Act. Investigation under the money-laundering statute includes collection of evidence by the authorised agency, and further investigation is therefore permissible. The statutory scheme, including the explanation to Section 44, recognises a subsequent complaint founded on further investigation and additional material against the same accused or other accused involved in the same transaction.
Conclusion: The supplementary complaint was maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether cognizance could be taken a second time and process issued again on the supplementary complaint after cognizance had already been taken on the initial complaint.
Analysis: Cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, and it is taken when the Court applies its mind to the complaint or material and decides to proceed. Once cognizance of the offence has already been taken, it cannot be taken again on a supplementary complaint relating to the same offence. On receipt of the supplementary complaint, the Court could take it on record and proceed with the pending prosecution, but a fresh act of cognizance and a fresh issuance of process were not legally warranted.
Conclusion: Cognizance could not be taken again and the fresh issuance of process was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law on the basis of the supplementary complaint already on record.
Ratio Decidendi: A supplementary complaint based on further investigation is maintainable, but once cognizance of an offence has been taken, the Court cannot take cognizance of the same offence again on that supplementary complaint; it may only proceed with the prosecution already initiated.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
