Patna High Court delivered two judgements on November 11, 2025 in Ajay Kumar Rai vs. The State of Bihar by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma (as part of Division Bench led by Acting Chief Justice) and Pushpraj Bajaj vs. The Union of India through the Assistant Director, ED, Patna Zonal Office, Patna by Justice Arun Kumar Jha.
In his 33-page long judgement in the case of Pushpraj Bajaj, a Kolkata based resident, Justice Jha relied on Supreme Court's decision in Kushal Kumar Agrawal vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221, wherein the Court observed that the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 223 of BNSS puts an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance in the absence of opportunity of hearing being afforded to the accused and, thus, set aside the order taking cognizance by the learned Special Court on a complaint filed under Section 44 (1) (b) of PMLA.
Justice Jha observed: "52. Now, having regard to the position of law as discussed herein above and specifically taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kushal Kumar Agrawal (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that as the complaint has been filed after 01.07.2024 and cognizance has been taken on 08.01.2025, Section 223 of BNSS will apply to the present complaint. Thereafter, proviso to Section 223 of BNSS mandatorily provides for an opportunity of hearing to an accused before cognizance could be taken against him, which means no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused of an opportunity of being heard and admittedly, no opportunity has been given by the learned Special Court to the petitioner before taking cognizance of an offence."
He concluded:"....I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Court in Special Trial No. (PMLA) 10/2024 suffers from infirmity and, hence, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Special Judge, PMLA, Patna for taking decision afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner in terms of Section 223(1) of BNSS within a reasonable time. 54. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands allowed. 55. However, it is made clear that this Court has interfered with the impugned order merely on infirmity and illegality committed by the learned Special Court. This order shall not be treated to be an order expressing any opinion on the merits of the case."
The criminal revision was filed under Sections 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking setting aside of the order dated January 8, 2025 passed by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PMLA), Patna in Special Trial No. (PMLA) 10/2024 along with proceedings emanating therefrom, whereby and whereunder the Special Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the petitioner and others.
No comments:
Post a Comment