Chattisgarh High Court
Arun Pati Tripathi vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 18 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:25388
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 462 of 2025
Arun Pati Tripathi S/o Late Shri Prakash Pati Tripathi Aged About 55 Years
R/o House No. 1 A, Street- S.P.A, Sector-9, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
Directorate of Enforcement Raipur Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, A-1, Block
Pujari Chambers, New Dhamtari Road, Panchpedinaka Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Shishir Prakash, Advocate (through video
conferencing) assisted by Mr. Aditya Tiwari,
Advocate
For Respondent-ED : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
18/06/2025
1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur (C.G.) in the prosecution complaint
filed in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024, whereby the learned
trial Court took congnizence against the present applicant for the
offences under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant draw the attention to this Court on
the following two grounds :
(i) The prosecution complaint was filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as
'the PMLA') on 05.10.2024.
(ii) On 05.10.2024, the learned trial Court took cognizance against the
applicant and on 07.02.2025, this Court quashed the order of
cognizance and remanded back the matter to the learned Special Court
with liberty granted to the respondent-ED to proceed further before the
trial Court for taking cognizance a fresh against the applicant. On
07.03.2025, the Special Court passed the order of cognizance against
the applicant without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant
which is bad in law.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in the matter of
Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement passed in
Criminal Appeal No.2749 of 2025 on 09.03.2025, in which it is held
that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS 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.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED not opposes the submission as
per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS because
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kushal Kumar Agarwal
(supra) has already been dealt with the matter and held that when an
opportunity of being heard was not given by the learned Special Court
to the applicant before taking cognizance of the offence it is against the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with
utmost circumspection.
6. It is an admitted fact that the present complaint was filed on 05.10.2024
and learned Special Judge has took cognizance on 07.03.2025 against
the present applicant without giving opportunity of hearing before
taking cognizance, therefore, in the light of judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal (supra),
the impugned order dated 07.03.2025 is set aside only on the ground of
non compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of
the BNSS.
7. Needless to say that I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the
complaint as well as on the prosecution sanction order. I direct to the
applicant/revisioner and the respondent-ED to appear before the
Special Court on 05.07.2025 (this date is given with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties), so that the learned Special Judge can
be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS. I make it clear that no further
notice shall be issued by the Special Court to the applicant/revisioner.
8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
