2025:UHC:4082 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 218 of 2025 19th May, 2025 Parvinder Singh ……….Revisionist Versus Directorate of Enforcement (ED) ………….Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Zoheb Hussain and Ms. Monika Pant, Advocates for the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, through video conferencing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1 of 2025) 2. There is a delay of 204 days in filing the present criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate does not seriously oppose the application. 4. In this view of the matter, delay of 204 days in filing the criminal revision is hereby condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. CRLR No.218 of 2025 5. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has put to challenge the order dated 02.07.2024, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge (P.M.L.A.), Dehradun in 1 2025:UHC:4082 Special Sessions Trial No.28 of 2024, Enforcement Directorate Vs. Parvinder Singh, whereby learned Judge took cognizance of the offence on the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate against the revisionist. 6. The learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist has challenged the order dated 02.07.2024 on the sole ground that in view of the provision of Section 223 proviso first of the B.N.S.S. 2023 the cognizance of any offence against the revisionist cannot be taken without giving him an opportunity of hearing. 7. In reply to the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate submits that the provision of Section 223 of B.N.S.S. 2023 shall be read along with provision of Section 531 “Repeal and Saving” of the B.N.S.S. 2023 and it is only thereafter it will culled out that as to whether the cognizance order was in accordance with law or not. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties first proviso to Section 223 as well as Section 531 sub-section 2(a) of B.N.S.S. 2023 are required to be analyze and appreciated. The said provisions are quoted hereunder:- 2 2025:UHC:4082 “223. Examination of complainant.–(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard: 531. Repeal and savings.–(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) is hereby repealed. (2)Notwithstanding such repeal- (a) if, immediately before the date on which this Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), as if this Sanhita had not come into force; (b) ………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………….” 9. It is true that cognizance of an offence can be taken after giving an opportunity to the accused as per the proviso appended to Section 223, but as is reflected from Section 531 sub- section 2(a), it has to be ascertained as to when the appeal, application, trial in query or investigation was pending immediately before the date on which B.N.S.S., 2023 came into force i.e., 01.07.2024. If immediately before the date on which B.N.S.S. came into force i.e., 01.07.2024, the application is pending or investigation is pending in that situation, cognizance will be taken against the offence in accordance with the provision of the Cr.P.C. as if B.N.S.S. 2023 had 3 2025:UHC:4082 not come into force. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the proceedings of Enforcement Directorate were initiated against the revisionist on information sought by U.S. Authorities against the revisionist on 22.11.2022. 11. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the revisionist that the ECIR cannot be equated with F.I.R., and the beneficial provision of law should be applicable in accordance with prevalent law on the date when the cognizance was taken. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for Enforcement Directorate submitted that proceedings of Enforcement Directorate were initiated against the revisionist which resulted into registration of ECIR against the revisionist accused on 24.07.2023 and the complaint was filed after investigation against the revisionist and one co-accused on 24.06.2024 before coming into effect of B.N.S.S. 2023. 13. Having considered the rival submission of the parties and having gone through the facts of the case, it appears to this Court that the provision of Section 223 will not come into play 4 2025:UHC:4082 as the proceedings were initiated against the revisionist and one co-accused prior to the enforcement of B.N.S.S. 2023 i.e., 05.07.2024. 14. I do not find any merit in the submission of learned senior counsel for the revisionist as the initiation was much prior to enforcement of B.N.S.S. 2023. 15. Accordingly the criminal revision has no merit and the same is rejected. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.05.2025 SK 5