Reiterates right to hearing under BNSS 2023
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has set aside an order of the PMLA Special Court at Merces, ruling that the trial court took cognisance of Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) complaint into illegal grabbing of communidade land without first hearing the accused, as required under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice Ashish Chavan, while allowing criminal writ petition filed by Delhi-based Neeraj Sharma on Tuesday, ruled that the Special Court did not give him an opportunity for hearing before taking cognisance of the offence on the complaint.
The petitioner had challenged the trial court’s decision to take cognisance of offences alleged in a complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, and to simultaneously issue summons to him and other accused on the same day.
The Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) Panaji Zonal Office had, in December 2025, conducted search operations at six locations across Goa, New Delhi and Chandigarh in connection with the ongoing probe into the illegal grabbing of communidade land, case against Yeshwant Sawant and others. In that search, operations were carried out on the premises of Umar Zahoor Shah and Neeraj Sharma, partners of M/s Thinking of You, and Rajesh Kumar, Director of M/s Purple Martini Entertainment Pvt Ltd.
Meanwhile, during the hearing, Advocate D V Patkar, appearing for Sharma, argued that the order was without jurisdiction and struck at the root of procedural fairness, as no opportunity of hearing was granted before cognisance was taken.
“On December 04, 2025, the Special Court, Merces, Goa, took cognisance of the offences alleged in the complaint and simultaneously issued summons to the Petitioner as well as other co-accused. The Petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard in terms of Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023 before the cognisance was taken... the denial of the statutory right conferred upon the Petitioner strikes at the very root of procedural fairness and vitiates the order taking cognizance at the very inception,” the advocate argued.
The ED, represented by advocate S Samant, conceded the factual position before the High Court, acknowledging no prior hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the cognisance order was passed, and left it to the court to pass appropriate orders.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Kushal Kumar Agarwal v/s Directorate of Enforcement, the High Court observed that complaints filed by the ED after July 1, 2024, are governed by Section 223 of the BNSS, which introduces an express requirement of hearing the accused at the pre-cognisance stage. The court noted that the apex court has held such compliance to be mandatory.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the December 4, 2025 order only on the ground of non-compliance with Section 223(1) of the BNSS and directed the petitioner to appear before the Special Court on February 4, 2026, at 2.30 pm, so that he may be heard before a fresh decision on cognisance is taken. The court clarified that no further notice would be issued to him.
The High Court also made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ED’s complaint and disposed of the petition.
