-
by sayum
07 July 2026 3:12 PM
“Section 44 of PMLA permits supplementary complaints; no second cognizance required” – In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of cognizance under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the applicability of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to pending proceedings, the Madras High Court on 08 December 2025 dismissed a criminal original petition challenging the cognizance of a supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an ongoing money laundering prosecution.
“Second Cognizance Is Unknown to Criminal Law” – Supplementary Complaint Deemed Part of Original Complaint
The petitioner, G. Ganesan, a former Deputy Manager with the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC), Chennai, had challenged the order of the Special Court under PMLA dated 17.03.2025, which took on file a supplementary complaint filed by the ED, naming him as Accused No.5 in the laundering of ₹12.5 lakh received in the course of a recruitment scam.
Rejecting the challenge, the Bench held:
“Cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. The concept of taking ‘second cognizance’ on a supplementary complaint is unknown to criminal law.”
The Court clarified that once the Special Court took cognizance of the scheduled offence on 14.08.2023, any further complaint arising from the same investigation was deemed part of the same judicial proceeding under Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1)(d) PMLA, as amended by the Finance Act, 2019.
BNSS Provisions Inapplicable to Pending Proceedings Under CrPC
“Section 531(2)(a) BNSS mandates continuity under CrPC for pre-01.07.2024 proceedings”
One of the core arguments raised by Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar on behalf of the petitioner was that Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates a pre-cognizance hearing to the accused, was violated. The Court rejected this contention by invoking Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS, which provides that:
“If a trial, inquiry, or investigation is pending as on 01.07.2024, it shall continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as if the BNSS had not come into force.”
Referring to Asgarali Nazarali Singaporawalla v. State of Bombay (1957) and Lt. Col. S.K. Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan (1971), the Court defined the term “pending” to include any matter in which any further step is possible and held:
“Cognizance of the offence was taken on 14.08.2023. Thus, proceedings were pending before 01.07.2024 and continue under CrPC. Section 223(1) of BNSS does not apply.”
“No Requirement of Fresh Cognizance or Sanction” – Special Court’s Summons Valid
The petitioner argued that the Special Judge failed to pass a reasoned order on the supplementary complaint and that no fresh sanction under Section 197 CrPC / Section 218 BNSS was obtained.
Rejecting both contentions, the Court held: “The complaint by ED is not a private complaint. It follows a statutory investigation. Thus, the Special Judge is not bound to pass an elaborate order while issuing summons.”
Citing R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. (1951), the Court reiterated: “Cognizance occurs as soon as the Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence.”
As regards sanction, the Court held that the petitioner was not a public servant removable by the Government, and in any event, receiving and concealing proceeds of crime was not an act done in the discharge of official duty.
“Section 197 CrPC does not apply when the alleged act is entirely outside the scope of official duty. Receipt of ₹12.5 lakhs in furtherance of a conspiracy cannot be shielded by official status.”
PMLA Is a Standalone Offence – Cognizance Not Tied to Predicate Case
The petitioner argued that since he was already facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) for the same transaction, the PMLA prosecution was barred. This argument was also rejected.
“PMLA is a standalone offence. Once proceeds of crime are traced, ED is empowered to prosecute independently.”
Referring to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Court held that restrictions on cognizance under PC Act or need for sanction under Section 19 PC Act are not applicable to PMLA proceedings.
“Explanation to Section 44 PMLA Recognizes Supplementary Complaints”
“Investigation Can Continue Post Cognizance – No Bar to Subsequent Prosecution”
The petitioner contended that no new materials were found to justify filing a supplementary complaint. The Court decisively rejected this, pointing to Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1)(d) of PMLA, inserted in 2019, which states:
“The complaint shall be deemed to include any subsequent complaint in respect of further investigation… whether named in the original complaint or not.”
The Court added: “Even under the CrPC, further investigation after cognizance is permissible as held in Ram Lal Narang (1979). PMLA, commencing with a non obstante clause, provides even greater flexibility.”
No Error in Cognizance or Summons – Petition Dismissed
Summing up its 119-page judgment, the Bench held: “There is no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the order of the Special Court dated 17.03.2025. The Criminal Original Petition lacks merit.”
The Court also reaffirmed that no “second cognizance” is required when a supplementary complaint arises from the same offence, and that sanction under Section 197 CrPC is inapplicable to money laundering acts done beyond the scope of official duties.
Key Takeaways:
Date of Decision: 08 December 2025
