Court Emphasizes Meaningful Hearing Under BNSS Section 223(1) Proviso, Overturns Trial Court Order Denying Document Access to Accused
In a landmark judgment dated November 5, 2026, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench, Division Bench) clarified and reinforced the procedural rights of accused persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), read with the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court held that accused individuals have a statutory right to be furnished with copies of all documents relied upon by the prosecution at the pre-cognizance stage itself, ensuring a real, fair, and meaningful opportunity of being heard as mandated by the first proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS.
The case arose when R. Anandha Ramakrishnan, the petitioner and fourth accused in a PMLA proceeding, sought a direction to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide copies of the relied-upon documents before the trial court took cognizance. The trial court had rejected this request, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025), which, according to the trial court, restricted the right to access documents to the post-cognizance stage.
Challenging this, the petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court erred in its interpretation by disregarding the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, introduced specifically to prevent frivolous and vexatious complaints by granting the accused a meaningful hearing at the pre-cognizance stage. The counsel also cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026), which held that "opportunity of being heard" includes furnishing copies of all relied-upon documents before cognizance.
The Madras High Court, while examining the interplay between the PMLA and BNSS, relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026). The Supreme Court had unequivocally held that procedural safeguards under BNSS, including the first proviso to Section 223(1), apply even to PMLA cases and that failure to grant a hearing before cognizance renders the proceedings void ab initio. The Court also stressed that the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution requires access to all relevant materials to effectively rebut prosecution claims, especially considering the reverse burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA.
Rejecting the trial court's reliance on Sarla Gupta's decision as misplaced because it dealt with post-cognizance rights and pre-BNSS procedural law, the Madras High Court held that the accused must be given copies of relied-upon documents in the pre-cognizance stage to avoid rendering the hearing a mere empty formality. The Court clarified that this right does not allow the accused to present a defense or challenge the merits at this stage but ensures that the accused can meaningfully participate in the cognizance process by knowing the prosecution's case.
Consequently, the Madras High Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the Enforcement Directorate to furnish copies of all relied-upon documents to the petitioner within four weeks. The judgment marks a significant step toward ensuring procedural fairness in PMLA prosecutions under the BNSS framework.
This ruling aligns with the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial and the evolving jurisprudence that harmonizes special statutes like PMLA with procedural safeguards of the Criminal Procedure Code and BNSS. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to preventing misuse of money laundering laws through premature or unfair prosecutions.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Pre-cognizance stage - Accused is entitled to copies of all relied-upon documents before cognizance - Expression "opportunity of being heard" in first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS must be given meaningful effect - Mere hearing without supply of relied-upon documents would be an empty formality.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 223(1), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Sections 24, 44(1)(b), 65, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 200, 204, 223, 233, 243
