Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Supreme Court of India, 19 May 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 519

The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, requiring the accused to be heard before cognizance, applies to PMLA complaints where cognizance is taken after 1 July 2024, though filed and numbered earlier; cognizance without that hearing is void.

Facts

The Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR against the appellant in July 2023 and arrested him in April 2024. It filed a prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA before the Special Court on 24 June 2024. That day the Special Court directed the complaint to be registered as a miscellaneous case and listed it for hearing on cognizance. The BNSS replaced the CrPC from 1 July 2024. On 2 July 2024 the Special Court took cognizance under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA without hearing the appellant. His recall application, relying on the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, was dismissed and charges were framed. The High Court of Uttarakhand held that Section 223 did not apply, because Section 531(2)(a) BNSS saved proceedings begun before the BNSS. The appellant appealed.

Questions before the Court

Whether the provisions on complaints in Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS (Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC) apply to a prosecution complaint under the PMLA.
Whether an "inquiry" was pending before 1 July 2024 under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS, so that the CrPC continued to govern, when the Special Court had only numbered the complaint and listed it for cognizance.
Whether cognizance taken without hearing the accused under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS can stand without proof of prejudice.

What the Court held

Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC, now Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS, apply to proceedings under the PMLA. The Court agreed with Tarsem Lal, Yash Tuteja and Kushal Kumar Agarwal and refused the request to refer Kushal Kumar Agarwal to a larger Bench.
The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is substantive, not merely procedural: it confers on the accused a right to be heard before cognizance, which is part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21. The word "shall" in it is mandatory, and cognizance taken without compliance is void ab initio.
A ministerial act is not an "inquiry" under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS. An inquiry needs application of judicial mind. Numbering the complaint and listing it for cognizance on 24 June 2024 was not an inquiry, so Section 531(2)(a) did not save the proceeding and the BNSS applied when cognizance was taken on 2 July 2024.
Non-hearing at the stage of cognizance is not a mere irregularity under Section 506 or 511 BNSS but an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, so the accused need not show prejudice.
The High Court's judgment and the cognizance order were set aside, and the Special Court was directed to hear the appellant from the stage of cognizance within eight weeks.

Why it matters

The judgment holds that the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS is a substantive right tied to Article 21 and mandatory, so that cognizance without hearing the accused is void and no prejudice need be shown. It applies the BNSS complaint provisions to PMLA prosecutions, declining to refer Kushal Kumar Agarwal to a larger Bench. It also explains when an inquiry is pending under the transitional saving in Section 531(2)(a): a ministerial step before cognizance does not keep the CrPC in force.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Though Chapter XVI of the BNSS lays down the procedural law dealing with complaints made to a Magistrate, we hold that the aforesaid proviso is substantive in nature, as it does not merely regulate the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted, rather it confers a right upon the accused to be heard before taking cognizance which forms a part of the right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We further hold that the word "shall" occurring in the said proviso has to be construed to be mandatory in nature, which enures to the benefit of an accused.”

M. M. Sundresh, J.Page 16 of the judgment

“A mere ministerial act cannot be termed as an "inquiry" under Section 2(1)(k) of the BNSS. Taking cognizance is nothing but an application of judicial mind. So long as the application of the judicial mind is not exercised, an inquiry cannot commence. It is the judicial notice of an offence by the Court which is relevant.”

M. M. Sundresh, J.Page 21 of the judgment

“Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS has a laudable objective behind it which saves the proceedings initiated under the CrPC, prior to the commencement of the BNSS. It is meant to give a prospective application to the provisions of the BNSS. In other words, once a proceeding such as an appeal, application, investigation, inquiry or trial is initiated under the CrPC, then the same must meet its logical conclusion under the CrPC itself.”

M. M. Sundresh, J.Page 17 of the judgment

“As already discussed, though the complaint under the PMLA was filed earlier, the cognizance was only taken subsequently, on 02.07.2024, by which time the BNSS had come into force. Admittedly, the appellant has not been heard at the time of taking cognizance. The mandate of a legislation which ensures the right of an accused to a fair trial, whose liberty is at stake, cannot be dispensed with.”

M. M. Sundresh, J.Page 23 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 12055 of 2025)
Decided: 19 May 2026
Bench: M. M. Sundresh, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment delivered by M. M. Sundresh, J.

Questions on this case

1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.

Read cases in order with a study path