PMLA cognizance and supplementary complaints upheld where the Special Court applied its mind and the clarification operated retrospectively.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, cognizance by the Special Court was treated as valid once the court applied its mind to the complaint and proceeded with the matter, even without a formal order using the word "cognizance"; the challenge on that basis failed. The Court also held that Explanation II to Section 44(1)(b) is clarificatory, permits supplementary complaints based on further investigation, and applies retrospectively. On that construction, the complaint could be supplemented without waiting for all investigation to conclude, and the objections to maintainability were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cognizance had been validly taken on the complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the absence of a formal cognizance order and the fact that the complaint was followed by further investigation; and (ii) whether Explanation II to Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits supplementary complaints and applies retrospectively.

Issue (i): Whether cognizance had been validly taken on the complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the absence of a formal cognizance order and the fact that the complaint was followed by further investigation.

Analysis: Cognizance under the special statute was held to arise when the Special Court applied its mind to the complaint and proceeded further, and not only when a formal order using the word "cognizance" was passed. The complaint was checked, registered, and copies were supplied to the accused, which showed judicial application of mind. The Court also applied the settled principle that, in proceedings before a Special Court under the special statute, the Criminal Procedure Code applies unless excluded, and that the Special Court must assess whether a prima facie case is made out before proceeding.

Conclusion: Cognizance was validly taken, and the challenge on the ground that no cognizance had been taken was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Explanation II to Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits supplementary complaints and applies retrospectively.

Analysis: The Court held that the explanation is clarificatory and enables inclusion of subsequent complaints based on further investigation to bring additional oral or documentary evidence against any accused person. It further held that a complaint under the special statute need not await complete culmination of all investigation before being filed, and that the amendment does not create a new substantive right but clarifies the existing position. On that basis, the Court held the provision applicable to the case.

Conclusion: Supplementary complaints are maintainable under the provision, and Explanation II applies retrospectively.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Special Judge was upheld, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's objections to cognizance and maintainability failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, cognizance by the Special Court is taken on receipt and judicial consideration of the prosecution complaint, and a clarificatory explanation permitting subsequent complaints on further investigation operates retrospectively.

---