TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the cognizance order set aside on the ground that no pre-cognizance hearing was afforded under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (ii) Whether the delay in challenging the cognizance order deserved condonation.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the cognizance order set aside on the ground that no pre-cognizance hearing was afforded under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Analysis: The challenge was founded on alleged denial of hearing before cognizance was taken on a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The record showed that the petitioner and counsel were present when cognizance was taken, and the petitioner had also been heard on merits at the stage of bail. The Court held that cognizance denotes judicial notice of an offence and does not require a formal speaking order. In the absence of any specific material showing how the petitioner was actually prevented from being heard, and in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, the plea of violation of Section 223 could not succeed.
Conclusion: The cognizance order was not liable to be set aside on the ground of denial of pre-cognizance hearing.
Issue (ii): Whether the delay in challenging the cognizance order deserved condonation.
Analysis: The petition was filed belatedly after substantial delay, despite the petitioner being represented before the Trial Court on multiple occasions after cognizance was taken. The explanation that the petitioner was in custody and later required new legal advice was found unsatisfactory. The Court held that sufficient cause was not shown and that the delay explanation lacked credibility, particularly when the issue was never raised earlier.
Conclusion: The delay was not condoned.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the cognizance order failed on both the merits and the explanation for delay, and the petition was not entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: A belated challenge to a cognizance order on the ground of denial of pre-cognizance hearing will not succeed unless actual prejudice is shown, especially where the accused was present or represented and was later heard on merits.
TaxTMI 
