https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775803 The HC held that the filing of a prosecution complaint before an Additional Sessions Judge did not constitute an inquiry under Section 2(g) Cr.P.C., as the Judge lacked competence to take cognizance under the PMLA and did not apply judicial mind. Cognizance taken later by the Special Judge after the BNSS came into force must comply with the proviso to Section 223 BNSS, entitling the accused to a prior hearing. Applying the principle of beneficial construction, the court ruled that the accused has the right to be heard before cognizance is taken. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Special Judge was directed to pass a fresh order after affording the accused an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks. The petition was allowed. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:17:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775803 The HC held that the filing of a prosecution complaint before an Additional Sessions Judge did not constitute an inquiry under Section 2(g) Cr.P.C., as the Judge lacked competence to take cognizance under the PMLA and did not apply judicial mind. Cognizance taken later by the Special Judge after the BNSS came into force must comply with the proviso to Section 223 BNSS, entitling the accused to a prior hearing. Applying the principle of beneficial construction, the court ruled that the accused has the right to be heard before cognizance is taken. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Special Judge was directed to pass a fresh order after affording the accused an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks. The petition was allowed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775803