ORDER : N. K. Chandravanshi, J. Heard Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and Dr. N. K. Shukla, Senior counsel with Mr. Saurabh Dangi and Ms. Priya Mishra, counsel for the respondent. 1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. To set aside/quash the order dated 25.09.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Court of 4th ASJ, Raipur, District Courts, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in case titled as E.D. vs Babulal Agrawal in ECIR No.01/NGR/2011; ii. To direct Ld. Court of 4th ASJ (Special Judge, PMLA), Raipur District Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh to immediately take up the matter ‘E.D. Vs Babulal Agrawal and others in ECIR No.01/NGR/2011 regarding cognizance of prosecution complaint filed by ED and expedite the same as per law; and iii. Pass any other or further order (s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Facts of the case in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent in the capacity of an IAS Officer made unlawful gain and amassed huge property and got opened 446 bank accounts in the name of the villagers, thereby huge amount was deposited in the accounts and the same was used for investment in the shares of M/s Prime Ispat Limited, upon which a case was registered by the petitioner against the respondent under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2002’ ) consequent to the FIR registered by the Chhattisgarh State Anti Corruption Bureau in this regard after the search conducted by the Income Tax Department, thereafter investigation was initiated by the petitioner under the aforesaid Act, but the respondent was not cooperating with the investigation, upon which various summons were issued to him and ultimately he was arrested by the petitioner thereafter, he was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2021 passed in MCRC No.78/2021. After investigation, the petitioner filed prosecution complaint (PC) on 04.01.2021 in the Court of 4th ASJ (Special Judge) PMLA, wherein learned Special Judge also heard argument of learned counsel for the petitioner prior to registration of case but learned Special Judge vide impugned order has provided opportunity of hearing to the respondent (accused), which is not in accordance with the Act of 2002, hence the same has been challenged by the petitioner by way of the instant petition. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act of 2002 is a special statute enacted by the legislature in order to curb the menace of money laundering in India. It is further contended that after due investigation, the petitioner has filed complaint against the respondent under Section 3/4 of the Act of 2002. The aforesaid Act do not contemplate any provision with regard to providing opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance, despite that the learned court below vide impugned order has provided opportunity of hearing to the respondent. It is further contended that as per the provisions of the Act, 2002, Special Courts have been deemed to be a Court of Session and even in the provisions of Cr.P.C., Chapter XV and XVI, no provisions have been provided to hear the accused before the registration of the case. Hence, order impugned is liable to be quashed and relief may be granted to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/accused while referring its reply submits that although there is no specific provision enumerated in the Act of 2002, but since during inquiry, respondent was arrested by the petitioner and he was released by this Court by allowing the bail application filed by the respondent, thus even before the filing of complaint in instant case, the respondent is attending every proceeding before the learned Special Judge. Therefore, it is core right of the respondent to be heard prior to taking cognizance of the offence, as the respondent cannot become mere spectator to the proceedings, therefore, if the learned Special Judge has given opportunity of hearing to the respondent, hence it cannot be held illegal, as it is a settled principle of law that registration of criminal case is a serious matter to the person against whom the case is registered. It is further submitted that proviso of Section 44 (1) (b) of the Act, 2002 itself provides that if no offence of money laundering is made out, then the Authority is required to submit closure report before the Special Court. In that view of the matter, respondent wants to make his point with regard to the illegality committed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, respondent wants to make his point with regard to the illegality committed by the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel that although, scheme of the Act of 2002 shows that money laundering is an offence by itself, is inextricably connected to a scheduled offence (predicate offence) and therefore without there being any charge sheet issued in the predicate offence, there is no substance in the allegation of offence of money laundering in this regard. He relied in the case of Anosh Ekka vs Enforcement Directorate, WPCR No.257/2012, judgment rendered by the High Court of Jharkhand, which was relied by the Inspector of Police Versus Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA) and Another, reported in 2019 SCC Online Kerala 4546. He also relied on the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the matter of VGN Developers P. Ltd. Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2019 SCC Online Madras 12370. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10627/2019, M/s VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd Versus Deputy Directorate of Enforcement and Arun Kumar Mishra vs Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2015 Online Delhi 8658. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the prayer and perused the pleadings made in the petition along with the documents annexed therewith. 6. As per the case of the petitioner, after investigation, the petitioner has filed complaint case in the Court of Special Judge (The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) and 4th MACT, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) titled as ‘ED vs Babulal Agrawal and others in ECIR bearing No.ECIR/01/NGR/2011. The impugned order shows that since case filed by the petitioner is a complaint case, therefore, the learned Special Judge has heard argument prior to the registration/cognizance of the case and subsequently, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner herein stated that opportunity of hearing cannot be provided to the accused/respondent herein prior to the registration of the case, which has been granted by the impugned order by learned Special Judge. 7. Chapter VII of the Act, 2002 provides procedure to be adopted by the special Court’s after filing of complaint by the authorized authority. Relevant provisions are given as under :- 43. Special Courts.—(1) xxx xxx xxx. 7. Chapter VII of the Act, 2002 provides procedure to be adopted by the special Court’s after filing of complaint by the authorized authority. Relevant provisions are given as under :- 43. Special Courts.—(1) xxx xxx xxx. (2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence, other than an offence referred to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. 44. Offences triable by Special Courts.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— [(a) an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed:……. (b) a Special Court may, [***] upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take [cognizance of offence under section 3, without the accused being committed to it for trial]; [Provided that after conclusion of investigation, if no offence of money-laundering is made out requiring filing of such complaint, the said authority shall submit a closure report before the Special Court; or] [(c) xxx xxx xxx [(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the offence of money-laundering shall hold trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session.] [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that,— (i) the jurisdiction of the Special Court while dealing with the offence under this Act, during investigation, enquiry or trial under this Act, shall not be dependent upon any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as joint trial; (ii) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx 45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. 1. Xxx xxx xxx 2. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. 1. Xxx xxx xxx 2. Xxx xxx xxx Explanation – For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the expression “Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable” shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non- bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfillment of conditions under Section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section. 46. Application of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before Special Court.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (including the provisions as to bails or bonds), shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the persons conducting the prosecution before the Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor: xxx xxx xxx 47. Appeal and revision.—The High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by Chapter XXIX or Chapter XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), on a High Court, as if a Special Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court. 65. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply. - the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under this Act. 8. Perusal of the provisions of Section 44(1)(b) clearly shows that on complaint being made to the Special Court by an authority authorized in this behalf under the Act of 2002 cognizance of offence under Section 3, may be taken by Special Court, without the accused being committed to it for trial. 8. Perusal of the provisions of Section 44(1)(b) clearly shows that on complaint being made to the Special Court by an authority authorized in this behalf under the Act of 2002 cognizance of offence under Section 3, may be taken by Special Court, without the accused being committed to it for trial. Thus, for taking cognizance of the offence, presence of accused is not required and cognizance can be taken even in absence of accused, that is to say, before taking cognizance, hearing accused is not necessary. As per the provisions of the Section 45 of the Act, 2002, offences registered under this Act are cognizable and non-bailable. None of the provisions of the Act, 2002 provides any procedure that prior to registration of the case or taking cognizance, opportunity of hearing would be provided to the accused/respondent herein. Even in complaint cases filed under Chapter XV and XVI of CrPC, no provisions have been contemplated to provide opportunity of hearing to the accused prior to the registration of the case. 9. It is settled law that in complaint cases, the accused has no right to be heard at a stage prior to issue of process against him. Neither under the Code of Criminal Procedure nor under any principle of natural justice, the Court is required to issue notice or afford an opportunity of hearing to an accused in a case where the Police Officer/authorized authority has submitted final report/complaint but on consideration of the material of the record, the learned Court take cognizance of the offence in exercise of his powers under Section 190 (1) (b) and directs issue of process to the accused. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate holding of two trials, one before issue of process and the other after the process is issued. 10. In the case of Chandradev Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chhabi Bose and another [ AIR 1963 SC 1430 ], Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the issue has held that, the entire scheme of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that an accused person does not come into the picture till process is issued. This does not mean that he is precluded from being present when an inquiry is held by a Magistrate. This does not mean that he is precluded from being present when an inquiry is held by a Magistrate. He may remain present either in person or through or counsel or agent with a view to be informed of what is going on. But, since the very question for consideration being whether he should be called upon to face an accusation, he has no right to take part in the proceedings nor has the Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit him to do so. Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Surinder Mohan and Others reported in [ 2000(2) SCC 396 ]. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of A.R. Antule V ersu s Ramdas Srinivas Naik reported in [ 1984(2) SCC 500 ], that Magistrate’s power to take cognizance without holding inquiry or directing investigation is implicit in section 200 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The Act of 2002 is special enactment and offences registered under aforesaid Act are cognizable and non-bailable. Further, as per Section 46(1), the Special Courts constituted under this Act shall be deemed to be a Court of Session. None of the provisions of Cr.P.C. contemplates procedure to provide opportunity of hearing, before registration / cognizance of offence, to the accused in a case filed against him in the court of session. 12. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji vs The State Represented by Deputy Director and others in CRA Nos.2288-2289 of 2023 vide judgment 07.08.2023 has held in paras 23, 32 & 33 as under:- “23. …..............Even the Preamble of the Act reinforces the background in which the Act has been enancted by the Parliament being commitment of the country to the international community. It is crystal clear from the Preamble that the Act has been enacted to prevent money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from or involved in money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is neither a pure regulatory legislation nor a pure penal legislation. It is amalgam of several facets essential to address the scourge of money-laundering as such. In one sense, it is a sui generis legislation. xxx xxx xxx 32……..The PMLA, 2002 being a sui generis legislation, has its own mechanism in dealing with arrest in the light of its objectives. It is amalgam of several facets essential to address the scourge of money-laundering as such. In one sense, it is a sui generis legislation. xxx xxx xxx 32……..The PMLA, 2002 being a sui generis legislation, has its own mechanism in dealing with arrest in the light of its objectives. The concern of the PMLA, 2002 is to prevent money laundering, make adequate recovery and punish the offender. That is the reason why a comprehensive procedure for summons, searches, and seizures etc., has been clearly stipulated under Chapter V of the PMLA, 2002.’……… 33. In the absence of any mandate, on cannot force the Authorised Officer to ensure due compliance of Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 especially when a clear, different and distinct methodology is available under the PMLA, 2002. Following section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 for an arrest under the PMLA, 2002 would only defeat and destroy the very inquiry/investigation under the PMLA, 2002. Till summons are issued to a person, he is not expected to be in the know-how. Any prior intimation, other than what is mandated under the PMLA, 1973 might seriously impair theongoing investigation.” 13. Thus, as per the above consideration and particularly considering the fact that the Act of 2002 nowhere contemplates provision to provide opportunity of hearing to the accused prior to the registration of the case for taking cognizance. Hence, we find that order impugned passed by learned Special Judge is perverse and contrary to law. Therefore, we allow the petition and accordingly quash the impugned order dated 25.09.2021 passed by the concerned Special Court in unregistered criminal case vide Annexure- P/2. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the complaint case under consideration, in accordance with law expeditiously. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent states that the accused/respondent has filed an application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court and the same is also pending also. Hence, it is prayed that he may be permitted to pursue the aforesaid application before learned Special Court. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has nothing to say on the application filed by the respondent under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. 16. Hence, it is prayed that he may be permitted to pursue the aforesaid application before learned Special Court. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has nothing to say on the application filed by the respondent under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. 16. In view of the same, it will be open to the Court concerned to consider and decide the application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., which is pending before learned Special Court, in accordance with law. 17. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.