https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771729 A complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act filed after 1 July 2024 was governed by Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, including the proviso requiring the accused to be heard before cognizance is taken. The Court treated the Enforcement Directorate complaint procedure as falling within the new procedural framework and held that prior hearing was a mandatory condition precedent to valid cognizance. Because no opportunity of hearing had been afforded before the Special Judge took cognizance, the cognizance order was set aside. en-us Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2026 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771729 A complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act filed after 1 July 2024 was governed by Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, including the proviso requiring the accused to be heard before cognizance is taken. The Court treated the Enforcement Directorate complaint procedure as falling within the new procedural framework and held that prior hearing was a mandatory condition precedent to valid cognizance. Because no opportunity of hearing had been afforded before the Special Judge took cognizance, the cognizance order was set aside. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771729