The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused must be heard before a court takes cognisance in money laundering cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), as the right to a fair trial cannot be compromised even under special laws. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N K Singh dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's argument that PMLA is a standalone enactment exempt from general criminal procedure.
Key Observations
The bench emphasized that the proviso in Chapter XVI of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires hearing the accused before taking cognisance, is substantive and not merely procedural. It stated that this right is part of the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the word 'shall' in the proviso is mandatory. Any cognisance taken without compliance is void ab initio.
Rejection of ED's Argument
Responding to Additional Solicitor General S V Raju's submission that a special PMLA court cannot follow general criminal procedure, the court held that the mandate ensuring a fair trial cannot be dispensed with. It warned that accepting the ED's argument would lead to disastrous consequences, stripping the special court of its power to dismiss a complaint lacking evidence, postpone issuance of process, or dispense with the accused's appearance.
Case Quashed
The Supreme Court quashed a PMLA court's order that had taken cognisance without hearing the accused and directed the lower court to afford him an opportunity of hearing, reaffirming the procedural safeguard.
