https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775391 The HC quashed the proceedings under the PMLA against the petitioners, holding that taking cognizance without affording a pre-cognizance hearing, as mandated by the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, violates Article 21 and renders the cognizance order and subsequent proceedings null and void. The court rejected the contention that complaints under the PMLA are akin to charge sheets and affirmed that the right to hearing applies to complaints filed under special laws. It further held that the accused need not demonstrate prejudice or miscarriage of justice to vitiate cognizance taken without hearing, as the denial itself constitutes such prejudice. Divergent stands or concessions by the ED were deemed irrelevant. Consequently, the impugned cognizance order dated February 15, 2025, was set aside. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:28:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775391 The HC quashed the proceedings under the PMLA against the petitioners, holding that taking cognizance without affording a pre-cognizance hearing, as mandated by the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, violates Article 21 and renders the cognizance order and subsequent proceedings null and void. The court rejected the contention that complaints under the PMLA are akin to charge sheets and affirmed that the right to hearing applies to complaints filed under special laws. It further held that the accused need not demonstrate prejudice or miscarriage of justice to vitiate cognizance taken without hearing, as the denial itself constitutes such prejudice. Divergent stands or concessions by the ED were deemed irrelevant. Consequently, the impugned cognizance order dated February 15, 2025, was set aside. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775391