https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88905 SC held that a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA is governed by CrPC Sections 200-204, with Sections 223-226 also applicable. In the instant case, the Special Judge failed to provide the appellant an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of the offense. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20th April 2024 was set aside due to non-compliance with Section 223(1) of BNSS. The appellate court allowed the appeal, emphasizing procedural fairness and the mandatory requirement of hearing the accused prior to cognizance. en-us Fri, 30 May 2025 08:55:37 +0530 Fri, 30 May 2025 08:55:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88905 SC held that a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA is governed by CrPC Sections 200-204, with Sections 223-226 also applicable. In the instant case, the Special Judge failed to provide the appellant an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of the offense. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20th April 2024 was set aside due to non-compliance with Section 223(1) of BNSS. The appellate court allowed the appeal, emphasizing procedural fairness and the mandatory requirement of hearing the accused prior to cognizance. Highlights Money Laundering Fri, 30 May 2025 08:55:37 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88905