Pre-cognizance hearing under new criminal procedure law applies to PMLA complaints; administrative filing steps do not save the old regime.

The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is treated as requiring a pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing where a complaint is filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, because the protection is substantive and tied to fair-trial safeguards. Mere receipt, numbering, or listing of a complaint is only an administrative step and does not amount to an inquiry. Section 531(2)(a) applies only where a proceeding was already pending before the new code commenced; on the stated facts, cognizance was taken after commencement, so the saving clause did not preserve the earlier procedure at that stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies to a complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and requires giving the accused an opportunity of being heard before cognizance is taken; (ii) Whether Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 saved the proceedings from the operation of the new procedure on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies to a complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and requires giving the accused an opportunity of being heard before cognizance is taken.

Analysis: The complaint procedure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not inconsistent with the scheme of the criminal procedure code for taking cognizance on a complaint. The Special Court functions as a court of original criminal jurisdiction, and the statutory framework governing complaints before such court extends to the proceedings under the special enactment save where expressly excluded. The first proviso to Section 223(1) confers a substantive right on the accused to be heard before cognizance, and that protection is treated as mandatory because it is tied to fair trial protections and the exercise of judicial mind at the stage of cognizance. A mere ministerial act, such as numbering the complaint or posting it for hearing, is not an inquiry and does not satisfy the requirement of prior hearing.

Conclusion: Yes. The accused had to be heard before cognizance was taken, and non-compliance vitiated the cognizance order.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 saved the proceedings from the operation of the new procedure on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The saving provision applies where an appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation was already pending before the new code came into force. The Court held that an inquiry commences only when there is judicial application of mind, not when the complaint is merely received, numbered, or listed for cognizance. On the facts, cognizance was taken only after the new code commenced, and the earlier procedural steps did not amount to an inquiry or other pending proceeding within the meaning of the saving clause. Therefore, the earlier procedural regime was not preserved for the stage at which cognizance was actually taken.

Conclusion: No. Section 531(2)(a) did not exclude the application of the new code at the cognizance stage.

Final Conclusion: The cognizance order and the High Court's affirming judgment could not stand because the accused was not given the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing required under the new procedural law, and the matter had to be returned to the Special Court from that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute permits complaint-based cognizance and does not exclude the general procedural protections, the provision requiring an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is mandatory, substantive, and its breach renders the cognizance order invalid; a mere preliminary administrative step does not amount to an inquiry for saving-clause purposes.

---