https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94284 HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:42 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94284 HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand. Highlights Money Laundering Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:42 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94284