https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782242 Once cognizance of the offence had already been taken, a second supplementary complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was treated as part of the existing prosecution, so the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 did not require a fresh pre-cognizance hearing. The Court held that the brief order taking the supplementary complaint on file was at most a curable error of expression, not a jurisdictional defect, and rejected the challenge on that ground. It further held that the complaint was supported by fresh material from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and was not vitiated as stale merely because earlier complaints existed. The revision was dismissed. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:31:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782242 Once cognizance of the offence had already been taken, a second supplementary complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was treated as part of the existing prosecution, so the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 did not require a fresh pre-cognizance hearing. The Court held that the brief order taking the supplementary complaint on file was at most a curable error of expression, not a jurisdictional defect, and rejected the challenge on that ground. It further held that the complaint was supported by fresh material from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and was not vitiated as stale merely because earlier complaints existed. The revision was dismissed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782242