Arun Pati Tripathi Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside an order by the Special Judge (Prevention of Money Laundering Act – PMLA), Raipur, that took cognizance against Arun Pati Tripathi for offenses under the PMLA, 2002. The High Court’s decision, pronounced on July 16, 2025, was based solely on the ground that the applicant was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before cognizance was taken, a violation of procedural safeguards.
The case stems from a prosecution complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 on October 5, 2024, alleging offenses under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA. The Special Judge initially took cognizance against Mr. Tripathi on the same day. However, this initial cognizance order was quashed by the Chhattisgarh High Court on February 7, 2025, which remanded the matter back to the Special Court with liberty for the ED to proceed afresh for taking cognizance.
Following the remand, the Special Judge again took cognizance against Mr. Tripathi on March 7, 2025. This subsequent order became the subject of the present challenge before the High Court.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the Special Court’s action on March 7, 2025, was “bad in law” because it failed to provide Mr. Tripathi an opportunity of being heard before taking cognizance. This contention was supported by a recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No.2749 of 2025, dated March 9, 2025). In that ruling, the Supreme Court held that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) places an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance without first granting the accused an opportunity of being heard.
