Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Special Courts under the PMLA: Sections 43 to 47
The offence of money laundering is tried by a Special Court, a Court of Session designated under Section 43. It takes cognizance on the ED's complaint under Section 44, without committal, and applies the general procedure of the BNSS under Section 46, save where the Act provides otherwise. Two recent judgments have transformed the first step: in Kushal Kumar Agarwal (2025) and Parvinder Singh (2026), the Supreme Court held that the accused must be heard before cognizance under Section 223 of the BNSS. This note covers the Special Court from designation to appeal.
The course of a PMLA case before the Special Court, the scheduled offence as a tributary, and the pre-cognizance hearing
1. Designation and Jurisdiction: Section 43
§ The Special Court • Designation. The Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, designates one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for an area or areas, by notification. • Other offences. While trying a PMLA offence, the Special Court may also try any other offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial under the general procedure. • Status. Under Section 46, it is deemed a Court of Session, and the person conducting the prosecution is deemed a Public Prosecutor. |
2. Offences Triable: Section 44
Provision | What it provides |
|---|---|
s. 44(1)(a) | The offence punishable under s. 4, and any scheduled offence connected to it, are triable by the Special Court for the area where the offence was committed |
s. 44(1)(b) | The Special Court takes cognizance of the offence under s. 3 on a complaint by the authority authorised under the Act, WITHOUT the case being committed to it |
s. 44(1)(c) | If the court that took cognizance of the scheduled offence is not the Special Court, it shall, on application by the authority, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court |
Explanation (i), 2019 | The Special Court's jurisdiction over the laundering offence does not depend on orders in the scheduled offence, and the trial of both by the same court is not to be treated as a joint trial |
Explanation (ii), 2019 | 'Complaint' includes any subsequent complaint on further investigation, bringing further evidence against any accused, whether or not named in the original complaint |
§ Supplementary complaints and the two offences together Supplementary prosecution complaints. The ED may continue investigating after filing a complaint and file supplementary complaints with further evidence, including against persons not named originally. Trial together, not a joint trial. The laundering offence and the connected scheduled offence may be tried by the same Special Court, but each retains its separate character. Where the scheduled offence court is different. That court commits the scheduled offence case to the Special Court on the ED's application under Section 44(1)(c). |
3. The Pre-Cognizance Hearing
📖 Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 760, decided 9 May 2025 A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the provisions of Chapter XVI of the BNSS, Sections 223 to 226, apply to a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA. For a complaint filed after 1 July 2024, the proviso to Section 223(1) applies, so the Special Court cannot take cognizance without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. The cognizance order was set aside on that ground alone. |
📖 Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 INSC 519, decided May 2026 A Bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh held that the pre-cognizance hearing applies where cognizance is taken after 1 July 2024, even if the complaint was filed before that date. The right is substantive and mandatory, part of the fair trial guaranteed by Article 21; cognizance without it is void ab initio, and the accused need not show prejudice. The Special Court was directed to hear the accused afresh at the stage of cognizance within eight weeks. Both judgments build on Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Yash Tuteja v. Union of India (2024), which held that the complaint procedure of the general code applies to PMLA complaints so far as it is not inconsistent with the Act. |
4. Cognizance, Discharge, Charge and Trial
Stage | The question | The law |
|---|---|---|
Cognizance | Does the complaint disclose an offence on which to proceed? | s. 44(1)(b) PMLA; ss. 223 to 226 BNSS, including the pre-cognizance hearing |
Discharge | Is there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused? | As a Court of Session, under the BNSS provisions on discharge |
Framing of charge | Is there ground for presuming the accused has committed the offence? | Charge under s. 3 read with s. 4, under the BNSS provisions on charge |
Trial | Is guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt, with the s. 24 presumption? | Sessions trial procedure under the BNSS, as applied by s. 46 |
§ Points at every stage • The predicate. Is a scheduled offence registered and subsisting? If it is quashed or ends in final discharge or acquittal, the PMLA case falls (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary; Pavana Dibbur). • The proceeds. Is there property really derived from criminal activity relating to that offence? • The link. Does the material connect the accused to a process or activity with those proceeds? |
5. The BNSS, the Prosecutor, Appeal and Revision
Provision | What it provides |
|---|---|
s. 46: application of the BNSS | The general code applies to proceedings before the Special Court, save as otherwise provided; the Special Court is a Court of Session |
Public Prosecutor | The person conducting the prosecution before the Special Court is deemed a Public Prosecutor; the Central Government may appoint Special Public Prosecutors |
s. 47: appeal and revision | The High Court may exercise its powers of appeal and revision as if the Special Court were a Court of Session within its jurisdiction |
6. Frequently Asked Questions
Which court tries PMLA offences?
A Special Court, being a Court of Session designated by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, under Section 43.
Is committal needed before the Special Court takes cognizance?
No. Under Section 44(1)(b), the Special Court takes cognizance directly on the ED's complaint.
Must the accused be heard before cognizance of a PMLA complaint?
Yes, where cognizance is taken after 1 July 2024. Kushal Kumar Agarwal (2025) and Parvinder Singh (2026) held that the proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS applies, and cognizance without the hearing is void.
Can the scheduled offence and money laundering be tried together?
They may be tried by the same Special Court, but under the 2019 Explanation to Section 44 this is not a joint trial, and the laundering case is not dependent on orders in the scheduled offence.