The right of an accused to be heard before pleading guilty to the charges under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) also applies under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court held, citing fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Chapter sixteen [the] Pennies [containing section 223] “It not only regulates the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted… it gives the accused the right to be heard before taking knowledge, which forms part of the accused’s right to a fair trial…,” a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Koteswar Singh said on May 19, as it heard the appeal of an accused charged under the BNSS Act in 2023 and arrested after the BNSS came into effect a year later.
A special court took cognizance of the charges against accused Parvinder Singh in July 2024 without hearing him. He sought the withdrawal of this order, seeking protection under Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which gives the accused the right to be heard.
In May 2025, the Delhi High Court upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) argument that Section 223(1) was not applicable in this case, as the complaint against Parvinder Singh was registered before the BNSS came into effect. A year later, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling.
Article 223 deals with the examination of the complainant. The first condition prohibits the judge from examining a crime unless the accused is given the opportunity to be heard.
The Supreme Court noted that this provision uses the word “shall”. “The first condition of Article 223 must be construed as mandatory in nature… in the interest of the accused. As a result, the confession of the crime committed by the court without due compliance with… the condition will be void ab initio.” [void from the beginning]”.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, who represented the ED, argued that the Anti-Money Laundering Act is a stand-alone legislation. He added that the BNSS provisions have no application under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
The Supreme Court rejected this position, stressing the mandate of legislation that guarantees the right of the accused to a fair trial, whose freedom is at risk and cannot be dispensed with. She added that failure to comply with this is not just a violation, but is illegal.
The court observed that the nature of the right must be considered. She added that when a better right is given under BNSS, the accused should benefit from it. “Accordingly, we have no hesitation in applying Articles 200 to 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” [now Sections 223 to 228 of the BNSS] It will apply to proceedings under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.”
