Pre-cognizance hearing requirement under criminal procedure invalidates money-laundering complaint cognizance taken without hearing proposed accused.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, complaints filed under Section 44(1)(b) are subject to criminal-procedure cognizance rules where those rules are not inconsistent with the Act. The note explains that, after commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the proviso to Section 223(1) requires an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken against a proposed accused. Absence of that hearing is described as an illegality vitiating cognizance, rather than a curable irregularity dependent on proof of prejudice. The stated consequence is reconsideration of cognizance after granting a hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether cognizance of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, taken after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 without affording the proposed accused an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable.

Analysis: Complaints under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are governed by the cognizance provisions of the criminal procedure law, as those provisions are not inconsistent with that Act. For complaints governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the proviso to Section 223(1) prohibits cognizance without first giving the accused an opportunity of hearing. The admitted absence of such hearing is an illegality that vitiates the cognizance proceedings and is not a curable irregularity requiring proof of prejudice.

Conclusion: The cognizance order was unsustainable and was set aside; the matter was restored to the Special Court for a fresh cognizance decision after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

---