Supplementary complaint maintainable after cognizance; pre-cognizance hearing not required and stale-material challenge failed.

Once cognizance of the offence had already been taken, a second supplementary complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was treated as part of the existing prosecution, so the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 did not require a fresh pre-cognizance hearing. The Court held that the brief order taking the supplementary complaint on file was at most a curable error of expression, not a jurisdictional defect, and rejected the challenge on that ground. It further held that the complaint was supported by fresh material from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and was not vitiated as stale merely because earlier complaints existed. The revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 required a pre-cognizance hearing before the Special Court took the second supplementary complaint on file. (ii) Whether the second supplementary complaint was vitiated on the ground that it was founded only on stale material already available when the earlier complaints were filed.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 required a pre-cognizance hearing before the Special Court took the second supplementary complaint on file.

Analysis: Cognizance is taken of an offence and not of the offender, and once cognizance of the main offence had already been taken, the supplementary complaint was only an addition to the existing proceedings. The proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was held inapplicable because the impugned order did not amount to a fresh act of cognizance on a new complaint in the sense contemplated by that provision. The brief order taking the supplementary complaint on file was treated as a curable error of expression and not a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The challenge based on absence of pre-cognizance hearing was rejected and the order was upheld in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the second supplementary complaint was vitiated on the ground that it was founded only on stale material already available when the earlier complaints were filed.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the earlier authority relied upon by the petitioner and held that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office complaint under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 constituted fresh and new material. The supplementary complaint was therefore not a mere re-evaluation of previously collected material. Explanation (ii) to Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits supplementary complaints as part of the prosecution complaint, and the later complaint was found to be legally maintainable on that basis. The underlying past transactions did not make the predicate complaint stale.

Conclusion: The plea of stale material failed and the second supplementary complaint was held to be maintainable.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the impugned order taking the second supplementary complaint on file, and the revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A supplementary complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is maintainable as part of the existing prosecution once cognizance of the offence has already been taken, and the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not require a fresh pre-cognizance hearing in such a situation.

---