1) To what extent the Session Judge or Magistrate can permit accused to put his defence at pre-cognizance stage as per S 223 of BNSS?
2) No Need For Pre-Cognizance Summons To Accused In S.138 NI Act Case : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Speedy Trial Of Cheque Bounce Cases
E. Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in Ashok v. Fayaz Aahmad MANU/KA/1743/2025 has taken the view that since NI Act is a special enactment, there is no need for the Magistrate to issue summons to the Accused before taking cognizance (Under Section 223 of BNSS) of complaints filed Under Section 138 of NI Act. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, this Court directs that there shall be no requirement to issue summons to the Accused in terms of Section 223 of BNSS i.e., at the pre-cognizance stage.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2010
Decided On: 25.09.2025
Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Borcar and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
Author: Manmohan, J.
https://www.lawweb.in/2025/09/no-need-for-pre-cognizance-summons-to.html
3) Supreme Court: PMLA Accused Entitled To Hearing Before Cognizance Is Taken Of ED Complaint Filed After BNSS Came Into Effect
This Court has taken a consistent view that a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA will be governed by Sections 200 to 204 of the CrPC. This view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Yash Tuteja v. Union of India1 and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate2. Therefore, the provisions of Chapter XVI, containing Sections 223 to 226, will also apply to a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA. As the complaint has been filed after 1st July, 2024, Section 223 of the BNSS will apply to the present complaint. {Para 5}
6. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 puts an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance by providing that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
7. In this case, admittedly, an opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Judge to the appellant before taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint. Only on that ground, the impugned order dated 20th April, 2024, will have to be set aside.
In the Supreme Court of India
(Before Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.)
Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs Directorate of Enforcement
Criminal Appeal No. 2749 of 2025
Decided on May 9, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 760,2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221
https://www.lawweb.in/2025/06/supreme-court-pmla-accused-entitled-to.html
4) Karnataka HC: Notice To Accused under S.223 BNSS Can't Be Issued Before Recording Sworn Statement Of Complainant & Witness
11. The proviso indicates that an accused should have an opportunity of being heard. Opportunity of being heard would not mean an empty formality. Therefore, the notice that is sent to the accused in terms of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS shall append to it the complaint; the sworn statement; statement of witnesses if any, for the accused to appear and submit his case before taking of cognizance. In the considered view of this Court, it is the clear purport of Section 223 of BNSS 2023.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7526 OF 2024
SRI BASANAGOUDA R. PATIL (YATNAL) Vs SRI SHIVANANDA S. PATIL
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
Pronounced on : 27.09.2024
https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/karnataka-hc-notice-to-accused-under.html
No comments:
Post a Comment