1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Highlights
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The HC held that the Special Judge's cognizance of money laundering charges against a government servant, based on assets exceeding known income by 113.45%, was invalid for failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before cognizance. This procedural safeguard departs from the Cr.P.C. and cannot be bypassed. The Court clarified that re-examination of the complainant or witnesses is unnecessary when the complaint is by a public servant in official capacity or under transfer provisions of Section 212 BNSS. Consequently, the HC set aside the cognizance order dated 27.03.2025, reverting the matter to the pre-cognizance stage with directions for the Special Judge to adhere to the statutory hearing requirement before proceeding further. The petition was allowed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
