PMLA After the Repeal of IPC and CrPC: How BNS Scheduled Offences and BNSS Procedure Apply to FIRs, ECIRs and: Delhi Procedure and Defence Guide

Premium PMLA and Criminal-Law Transition Guide

Researched and prepared by Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Published: 11 August 2026 | Research verified up to: 11 August 2026

Direct answer

The repeal of the IPC and CrPC did not automatically destroy the IPC-based entries appearing in the PMLA Schedule. Where a BNS provision substantially re-enacts an IPC offence already specified in the Schedule, Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 may require the old reference to be read as a reference to the corresponding BNS provision, unless a different legislative intention appears.

This does not make every BNS offence a scheduled offence. The court must identify the precise BNS subsection, locate the old IPC counterpart, confirm that the counterpart is actually included in the PMLA Schedule, compare their essential ingredients and exclude any materially new or enlarged portion that Parliament has not scheduled.

BNSS performs a different function. It does not enter the PMLA Schedule. It replaces residual references to CrPC procedure, subject to Section 531 BNSS, the stage and date of the particular proceeding, and the overriding special provisions of the PMLA.

Important legal-update notice

The official online PMLA and FIU-IND materials examined for this article continue to display the IPC provisions in Paragraph 1 of Part A of the PMLA Schedule. On 8 July 2025, the Bombay High Court addressed the resulting transition problem in Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi v. Union of India, 2025:BHC-AS:27479; 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2586.

That decision is a significant Single Judge ruling delivered in a bail proceeding. It should be applied according to the judicial hierarchy and checked for any appeal, stay, reference to a larger Bench or later Supreme Court ruling before it is used in a live case. No reported Supreme Court decision conclusively reversing or affirming its central transition ruling was located during the research audit ending on 11 August 2026.

Contents

1. BNS mapping and BNSS mapping are different
2. Statutory structure after 1 July 2024
3. The Nagani Akram ruling
4. Reference versus incorporation
5. The judicial correspondence test
6. Working IPC-to-BNS concordance
7. Why new BNS offences are not automatically scheduled
8. Transitional FIRs, ECIRs and proceedings
9. CrPC-to-BNSS procedure under PMLA
10. Scheduled offence versus proceeds of crime
11. Document and evidence file
12. Stage-wise defence and prosecution strategy
13. Court-testing flowchart
14. Frequently asked questions

1. BNS mapping and BNSS mapping are legally different

The first source of confusion is the use of the word “mapping” for two different legal operations.

Transition	What it governs	PMLA consequence
IPC to BNS	Substantive criminal offences and their ingredients	Determines whether a corresponding BNS offence can supply the scheduled-offence foundation
CrPC to BNSS	Investigation, arrest, remand, bail, cognizance, trial, appeal and other criminal procedure	Updates residual CrPC references in Sections 46 and 65 PMLA, subject to PMLA and transitional savings
Evidence Act to BSA	Proof, documentary evidence and electronic evidence	Applies according to the PMLA framework and Section 170 BSA for pending proceedings

Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that “BNSS provisions have entered the PMLA Schedule.” The Schedule identifies offences, not procedural powers. BNS is relevant to the scheduled-offence gateway; BNSS is relevant to residual procedure.

2. The statutory structure that must be read together

2.1 PMLA Sections 2(1)(u), 2(1)(y) and 3

A “scheduled offence” is an offence specified in Part A or Part C of the Schedule. “Proceeds of crime” means property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, including the value of such property within the statutory formulation. Section 3 then addresses a person’s involvement in a process or activity connected with those proceeds.

Thus, the statutory chain is:

scheduled criminal activity → property derived or obtained from that activity → process or activity connected with that property → alleged role of the person proceeded against.

2.2 Section 358 BNS: repeal and savings

Section 358 repeals the IPC but preserves the previous operation of the IPC, liabilities incurred, punishments and proceedings concerning offences committed under it. Actions taken under the IPC are protected through the corresponding-provision mechanism, and the section expressly preserves the operation of the General Clauses Act.

The practical effect is that conduct committed before 1 July 2024 is not erased. Nor can a person ordinarily be exposed retrospectively to a new or harsher BNS offence for earlier conduct, having regard to Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

2.3 Section 531 BNSS: procedural savings

Section 531 repeals the CrPC. However, an appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before commencement is to continue under the CrPC as if BNSS had not come into force. Existing notifications, powers, forms, jurisdictions, sentences, orders, rules and appointments are protected through corresponding BNSS provisions. Old sanctions or consents may also be carried forward in the circumstances specified by the section.

The section does not say that the date of the FIR alone determines every later procedural application. Courts have therefore examined separately whether the particular investigation, application, trial or appeal was pending on 1 July 2024.

2.4 Section 8 of the General Clauses Act

Section 8 addresses a different problem. Where a Central Act repeals and re-enacts a provision, a reference in another enactment or instrument to the repealed provision is ordinarily construed as a reference to the re-enacted provision, unless a different intention appears.

In simple terms, when Law A points to a provision in Law B, and Law B is repealed and substantially re-enacted with new numbering, the reference in Law A does not ordinarily become meaningless merely because the number has changed.

2.5 Sections 46, 65 and 71 PMLA

• Section 46 applies the criminal procedure code to Special Court proceedings, subject to the PMLA.
• Section 65 applies criminal procedure insofar as it is not inconsistent with the PMLA.
• Section 71 gives the PMLA overriding effect where an inconsistency exists.

Consequently, BNSS can fill a procedural space left open by the PMLA. It cannot displace a specific PMLA mechanism governing summons, attachment, search, arrest, adjudication, cognizance or bail.

3. Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi v. Union of India: the first major PMLA transition ruling

Court	Bombay High Court
Bench	Amit Borkar J.
Case	Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi v. Union of India & Another
Case number	Bail Application No. 728 of 2025
Decision date	8 July 2025
Citation	2025:BHC-AS:27479; 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2586
Predicate provisions	BNS Sections 318(4), 338 and 340(2)
Old counterparts	IPC Sections 420, 467 and 471
Outcome	The maintainability objection was rejected and the bail application was dismissed.

3.1 The defence objection

The applicant argued that the PMLA Schedule continued to mention IPC provisions and had not been textually amended to insert the BNS. Because the predicate FIR contained BNS offences, the applicant contended that no scheduled offence existed and that ED lacked jurisdiction to maintain the ECIR and PMLA prosecution.

3.2 The High Court’s answer

The Court treated the PMLA Schedule’s IPC references as dynamic statutory references. Applying Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, it held that BNS provisions covering the same field and substance of criminality could be treated as the corresponding scheduled offences.

The Court reasoned that a contrary interpretation would create a legal vacuum in which IPC-based PMLA entries would become unusable for post-1 July 2024 conduct, even though Parliament had replaced rather than abandoned the relevant offences.

3.3 What the Court said about the 16 July 2024 notification

Notification S.O. 2790(E) states that statutory references to the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act should be read respectively as references to the BNS, BNSS and BSA and their corresponding provisions.

The Bombay High Court did not treat the notification as legislation capable of amending the PMLA. It held, in substance, that the notification reflected an executive understanding but lacked the legal character and delegated authority required to alter legislative references. The interpretive result followed from Section 8 and judicial interpretation—not from an executive amendment of the Schedule.

3.4 What Nagani Akram does not decide

• It does not declare every BNS offence to be scheduled.
• It does not allow an administrative chart to replace judicial comparison of ingredients.
• It does not convert a wholly new BNS offence into a Part A scheduled offence merely because it is serious.
• It does not dispense with proof that scheduled criminal activity generated proceeds of crime.
• It does not decide every transitional question under Section 531 BNSS.
• It does not convert an ECIR into an FIR.
• It does not eliminate other grounds for bail, discharge, quashing or opposition to attachment.

4. Legislation by reference versus legislation by incorporation

4.1 A simple explanation

Legislation by reference is similar to a live signpost. The later law points to another body of law, and subsequent amendments or re-enactments may travel through the reference where the statutory intention permits.

Legislation by incorporation is closer to a statutory snapshot. The later law bodily adopts the selected text as it existed at that time. Later changes in the source enactment ordinarily do not alter the incorporated text, subject to recognised exceptions.

4.2 Why labels are not mechanically decisive

Supreme Court authorities including State of another Indian jurisdiction v. M.V. Narasimhan and Girnar Traders (3) v. State of another Indian jurisdiction show that courts examine the statutory language, subject, purpose, dependency between the enactments, workability and legislative intention.

Even where a provision appears specifically incorporated, later changes may be considered where the enactments are supplemental or in pari materia, where a contrary approach makes the later Act unworkable, or where the later change is expressly or necessarily intended to apply.

4.3 Application to the PMLA Schedule

The PMLA Schedule identifies IPC offences through statutory numbers and short descriptions. It does not reproduce the complete definitions, explanations, exceptions and punishment framework of each IPC offence as an independent PMLA code. The PMLA necessarily depends on the external penal law to determine whether the predicate offence was committed.

This dependency supported the conclusion in Nagani Akram that the references should operate dynamically after repeal and re-enactment. However, dynamic interpretation is not authority for judicially adding unrelated or materially new offences to the Schedule.

4.4 The boundary courts must preserve

A court may update a statutory reference from an old provision to its genuine re-enactment. It cannot use purposive interpretation to perform the separate legislative function of adding a new scheduled offence.

Continuity permits correspondence; it does not permit enlargement without a statutory foundation.

5. How a court should test whether a BNS offence validly supplies the scheduled-offence foundation

1. Date every alleged act or omission. Identify whether it occurred before 1 July 2024, after that date, or across both periods. Do not rely only on the FIR date.
2. Identify the exact charged BNS provision and subsection. BNS Sections such as 308, 310, 317 and 318 contain several distinct offences in different subsections.
3. Locate the claimed IPC counterpart. Use the enacted texts first. The NCRB correspondence table is a helpful research aid but does not itself amend the PMLA.
4. Confirm that the IPC counterpart is actually in the PMLA Schedule. A provision may correspond to an IPC offence that was never listed in Part A.
5. Compare the legal ingredients—not merely the headings. Examine the actus reus, required intention or knowledge, object of the offence, victim or property category, punishment and statutory explanations.
6. Identify any enlargement, narrowing or newly added limb. A BNS provision may consolidate several IPC offences or add a new subsection. Only the truly corresponding scheduled field receives the strongest Section 8 protection.
7. Apply Section 8 of the General Clauses Act. Ask whether the IPC provision was repealed and re-enacted and whether a different intention appears from the PMLA, BNS or legislative scheme.
8. Apply Section 358 BNS and Article 20(1). Pre-commencement conduct cannot be exposed retrospectively to a new substantive offence or greater penalty merely because the case was registered later.
9. Examine Part A and Part C separately. A cross-border property offence under Part C raises a different interpretive inquiry from a specific offence listed in Part A.
10. Test whether the scheduled allegation remains legally alive. Examine quashing, closure, discharge, acquittal, compounding and the status of the predicate prosecution.
11. Identify the alleged proceeds of crime. A valid scheduled offence is a gateway, not proof that every receipt or asset is criminal property.
12. Record a reasoned conclusion. The court should identify the old entry, new provision, common ingredients, material differences, applicable savings clause and the alleged proceeds nexus.

6. Working concordance for IPC offences appearing in Paragraph 1 of Part A

The following is a research concordance based on the enacted provisions and NCRB’s official comparison table. It is not a legislative amendment, conclusive charge opinion or substitute for an ingredient-by-ingredient analysis.

IPC entry displayed in PMLA Schedule	Indicative corresponding BNS provision	Important qualification
120B	61(2)	Under Pavana Dibbur, conspiracy is scheduled only where its object is an offence independently included in the Schedule.
121; 121A	147; 148	Compare the precise offence against the State and alleged object of the conspiracy.
255; 257; 258; 259; 260	178; 181; 179; 180; 179 respectively	BNS consolidates coin, stamp and currency conduct. The applicable clause and statutory object must be identified.
302; 304; 307; 308	103; 105; 109; 110	The homicide or attempt ingredients must be established; the section number alone does not establish proceeds of crime.
327; 329	119(1); 119(2)	Distinguish hurt from grievous hurt and identify the extortionary or coercive object.
364A	140(2)	The ransom ingredients must correspond; other limbs of BNS Section 140 should not be automatically treated alike.
384–389	384→308(2); 385→308(3); 386→308(5); 387→308(4); 388→308(7); 389→308(6)	BNS Section 308 reorganises the sequence. Exact subsection mapping is essential.
392–402	392→309(4); 393→309(5); 394→309(6); 395→310(2); 396→310(3); 397→311; 398→312; 399→310(4); 400→310(6); 401→313; 402→310(5)	Robbery, dacoity, attempt, preparation and gang membership remain distinct offences.
411–414	317(2)–317(5)	Knowledge, character of stolen property, habitual dealing and concealment must be separately proved.
417; 418; 419; 420	318(2); 318(3); 319(2); 318(4)	BNS 318(4), not the entire Section 318 automatically, corresponds to IPC 420.
421–424	320–323	Identify the creditor-related or property-concealment ingredients of the specific provision.
467	338	The alleged forged document must fall within the valuable-security, will or specified document category.
471	340(2)	Knowledge or reason to believe that the document is forged and its use as genuine remain central.
472; 473	341(1); 341(2)	The intended category of forgery controls the applicable subsection.
475; 476	342(1); 342(2)	Identify the authentication device or mark and the relevant document category.
481; 482; 483; 484; 485; 486; 487; 488	345(2); 345(3); 347(1); 347(2); 348; 349; 350(1); 350(2)	Property-mark offences were reorganised. Each subsection requires independent verification.
489A; 489B	178; 179	BNS consolidates government-stamp, coin and currency-note offences. The particular prohibited object and act must be pleaded.

6.1 The Nagani Akram mapping

BNS offence	IPC counterpart	PMLA status considered by Bombay High Court
318(4): cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property	420	Corresponding scheduled offence
338: forgery of valuable security, will, etc.	467	Corresponding scheduled offence
340(2): using forged document or electronic record as genuine	471	Corresponding scheduled offence

7. Why every new or serious BNS offence is not automatically scheduled

Section 8 deals with repeal and re-enactment. It is not a general power to add any modern criminal offence to the PMLA Schedule.

Illustration	Correct PMLA inquiry
BNS Section 111: organised crime	It is described by NCRB as a new provision. It should not be treated as a Part A IPC entry merely because organised crime is serious. Examine whether another independently scheduled offence or scheduled special enactment applies.
BNS Section 112: petty organised crime	There is no automatic Part A foundation without a corresponding scheduled entry.
BNS Section 113: terrorist act	The UAPA contains separately scheduled offences. A BNS allegation cannot automatically be substituted for a UAPA charge without satisfying the relevant statute and Schedule entry.
BNS Section 152: acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity	NCRB identifies it as a new section rather than a simple replacement of IPC Section 124A. A fresh Schedule analysis is required.
BNS Section 304: snatching	This is identified as a new offence. It is not automatically an IPC Part A entry. A separate Part C cross-border inquiry may arise on appropriate facts but must not be assumed.
BNS Section 336(3): forgery for cheating	It corresponds to IPC Section 468, which is not displayed as a standalone Paragraph 1 Part A entry. Another scheduled offence, if alleged, must be independently identified.
BNS Section 316: criminal breach of trust	Its IPC counterparts include Sections 405–409, which are not, merely for that reason, Paragraph 1 Part A entries. A Prevention of Corruption Act or other scheduled foundation may raise a different question.

7.1 The difficult Part C question

Part C includes offences with cross-border implications and also contains a general reference to offences against property under Chapter XVII of the IPC. Because BNS also reorganises property offences under its Chapter XVII, Section 8 may support a dynamic-reference argument.

However, treating a genuinely new BNS offence as falling within this generic reference is more difficult than mapping BNS 318(4) to IPC 420. The court should examine:

• whether the new offence is within the re-enacted field of property offences;
• whether the statutory cross-border conditions are satisfied;
• whether the interpretation merely maintains continuity or materially enlarges criminal exposure;
• the strict-construction principle applicable to penal consequences;
• Article 20(1); and
• whether Parliament has shown a contrary intention.

8. Transitional FIRs, ECIRs and proceedings: use four separate clocks

A reliable transition analysis should record four dates:

1. date or period of the alleged predicate conduct;
2. date of the predicate FIR, complaint or information report;
3. date of the ECIR and each material PMLA action; and
4. date on which the particular bail application, complaint, trial, appeal or petition commenced.

Factual pattern	Substantive offence	Procedural position
Conduct and FIR both before 1 July 2024	IPC ordinarily continues through Section 358 BNS and repeal savings.	A predicate investigation, trial, appeal or application already pending at commencement ordinarily continues under CrPC through Section 531(2)(a) BNSS.
Conduct before 1 July 2024, but FIR or complaint filed afterwards	IPC ordinarily governs the earlier substantive conduct; Article 20(1) prevents disadvantageous retrospective criminalisation.	High Court approaches have differed on the full procedural consequences. Several rulings apply BNSS to a new post-commencement proceeding; the Madras High Court in Appavu read the savings more broadly. Jurisdiction-specific research is necessary.
Conduct and FIR after 1 July 2024	BNS applies.	BNSS ordinarily applies to the predicate case. A corresponding BNS offence may support PMLA only after the Schedule and ingredient test.
Predicate FIR before 1 July 2024, ECIR or PMLA action afterwards	The predicate substantive offence ordinarily remains under IPC.	The pending predicate investigation may remain under CrPC, but each new PMLA application or Special Court proceeding must be separately classified under Sections 46, 65 and 71 PMLA and Section 531 BNSS.
Alleged conduct spans both sides of 1 July 2024	Each act, transaction, count and alleged continuing offence must be dated. A blanket conversion is unsafe.	The governing procedure may depend on when the particular investigation, application or trial commenced and whether it was pending at the transition.

8.1 A later FIR does not change the historical date of the offence

If an alleged deception, forgery, misappropriation or other completed act occurred before 1 July 2024, its legal character is not ordinarily transformed into a new BNS offence merely because police learned of it or registered the case later.

8.2 A continuing PMLA process raises a separate question

The predicate criminal activity and the alleged Section 3 PMLA process are related but distinct. Concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projection or claiming may be alleged to continue after the original property was generated. The prosecution must plead and prove the relevant post-commencement activity; it cannot rely on the label “continuing offence” as a substitute for facts.

9. How CrPC-to-BNSS procedural references operate in PMLA matters

Sections 46 and 65 PMLA still textually refer to the CrPC. Applying Section 8, those residual references may be read as references to corresponding BNSS provisions for proceedings governed by the new procedure. But three rules must be applied in order:

1. Apply the specific PMLA provision first.
2. Use BNSS only for a procedural matter not inconsistently governed by PMLA.
3. Apply Section 531 BNSS to determine whether the particular pending proceeding remains under CrPC.

Procedural subject	Old and new general provision	PMLA qualification
Predicate FIR	CrPC 154 → BNSS 173	An ECIR is not an FIR. Predicate police registration and ED’s internal case recording remain legally distinct.
Police arrest and notice	CrPC 41/41A → BNSS 35	An ED arrest is governed principally by Section 19 PMLA, written grounds jurisprudence and constitutional safeguards.
Remand during predicate investigation	CrPC 167 → BNSS 187	After an ED arrest, remand also engages Sections 19 and 45 PMLA and binding PMLA arrest/remand judgments.
Police report	CrPC 173 → BNSS 193	ED ordinarily files a prosecution complaint under Section 44 PMLA, not a police report.
Cognizance of ordinary offence	CrPC 190 → BNSS 210	Section 44(1)(b) PMLA authorises the Special Court to take cognizance upon an authorised complaint without committal.
Complaint procedure	CrPC 200 and related provisions → BNSS 223 and corresponding provisions	Apply only to the extent compatible with the special cognizance arrangement under PMLA and current Supreme Court law.
Anticipatory bail	CrPC 438 → BNSS 482	PMLA applicability depends on the stage, apprehended process and special statutory structure.
Regular bail	CrPC 439 → BNSS 483	Section 45 PMLA remains the special bail provision. Nagani Akram was moved under BNSS 483 read with PMLA 45.
Undertrial release for prolonged custody	CrPC 436A → BNSS 479	Constitutional speedy-trial principles and current PMLA bail decisions must also be considered.
High Court inherent jurisdiction	CrPC 482 → BNSS 528	The maintainability and appropriate remedy depend on the precise PMLA action, alternative remedy and binding law concerning ECIRs and summons.

9.1 Section 531 is proceeding-specific

The Delhi High Court in Prince v. State (NCT of Delhi) and the Gauhati High Court in In Re: XXX v. State of Arunachal Pradesh treated bail or criminal petitions filed after 1 July 2024 as proceedings under BNSS even where the connected FIR predated commencement. Their reasoning was that the later application itself was not pending on the transition date.

The Madras High Court in Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu v. R.M. Babu Murugavel adopted a broader view of the savings protection in a case concerning pre-commencement conduct and a later complaint. These decisions show why a party should not cite the FIR date as the sole procedural answer.

9.2 The ECIR is not the transition anchor for every issue

Under the current Supreme Court position, an ECIR is an internal ED document and is not equivalent to an FIR. The legal analysis should instead identify:

• the exact scheduled-offence record;
• the date and nature of the predicate conduct;
• the date on which ED began the relevant PMLA step;
• whether a PMLA application or trial was pending on 1 July 2024; and
• which procedural question actually requires recourse to CrPC or BNSS.

10. A corresponding scheduled offence is only the gateway—not the complete PMLA case

The mapping question answers whether a legally recognised scheduled-offence foundation may exist. It does not answer whether money laundering occurred.

10.1 The prosecution must identify criminally generated property

The property must be alleged to have been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence. The value of every bank credit, business receipt, loan, asset or turnover cannot be treated as proceeds merely because a scheduled section appears in the FIR.

10.2 The criminal activity must correspond to the scheduled ingredients

Suppose an FIR cites BNS Section 318(4), but the factual allegation discloses only a subsequent failure to perform a contract without dishonest intention at inception. The court must examine whether the scheduled cheating ingredients are actually alleged. A section label cannot manufacture the required criminal activity.

10.3 The person proceeded against need not always be a predicate accused

Pavana Dibbur explains that a person may theoretically become involved in a later process connected with proceeds without being named in the predicate offence. However, the prosecution must still establish the scheduled criminal activity, the resulting property and that person’s knowing or actual involvement within Section 3.

10.4 Effect of quashing, closure or acquittal

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary recognises the indispensable connection between proceeds of crime and scheduled criminal activity. If the scheduled case is finally quashed or concludes in a manner establishing that no scheduled criminal activity and no resulting criminal property existed, the PMLA foundation ordinarily cannot independently survive.

The precise effect depends on the final predicate order, the reason for closure or acquittal, appeal status and whether another valid scheduled offence remains.

11. Documents required for a reliable BNS-PMLA transition analysis

11.1 Predicate-offence file

• FIR, complaint or information report with the exact provisions and subsections;
• complaint date, FIR date and occurrence period;
• charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet or final report;
• cognizance, discharge, quashing, closure and appellate orders;
• sanction or consent, where applicable; and
• documents said to establish each ingredient of the alleged scheduled offence.

11.2 Statutory correspondence file

• the relevant version of the PMLA Schedule;
• complete text of the claimed IPC offence;
• complete text of the charged BNS provision;
• Section 358 BNS;
• Sections 6 and 8 of the General Clauses Act;
• NCRB correspondence table, used only as a research aid; and
• a written ingredient-by-ingredient comparison.

11.3 PMLA file

• summons and production records under Section 50;
• search authorisation, panchnama, seizure or freezing documents;
• arrest order and written grounds of arrest;
• remand applications and orders;
• provisional attachment order and recorded chronology;
• original complaint before the Adjudicating Authority;
• Section 8 show-cause notice and confirmation order;
• prosecution complaint and cognizance order; and
• the property-wise proceeds-of-crime calculation.

11.4 Four-clock chronology

Prepare one table showing the date of conduct, predicate registration, commencement and status of investigation, ECIR/PMLA action, arrest, attachment, complaint, bail application and trial. This often reveals that different parts of the same matter are governed by different savings rules.

12. Stage-wise litigation and defence strategy

12.1 At the Section 50 summons stage

• Do not assume that the Schedule objection alone ends the inquiry.
• Identify the precise scheduled offence recorded by ED.
• Prepare a short statutory correspondence note.
• Preserve the conduct chronology and all predicate orders.
• Answer factual questions truthfully while avoiding guesses about legal correspondence.
• Separate the lawful-source case from the statutory-foundation objection.

12.2 At the arrest and remand stage

• Check whether the grounds of arrest identify an actual scheduled BNS/IPC correspondence.
• Test whether the scheduled ingredients are supported by the relied-upon material.
• Examine whether the alleged property is connected with the scheduled criminal activity.
• Raise the applicable CrPC/BNSS transition issue with exact dates.
• Do not present Nagani Akram as either a universal answer for ED or a decision that eliminates every defence objection.

12.3 At the Section 45 bail stage

A complete bail application should address:

• the validity or invalidity of the claimed scheduled foundation;
• the applicant’s role in the alleged Section 3 process;
• the property trail and quantum actually attributable to the scheduled conduct;
• custody, investigation status and need for further interrogation;
• documentary nature of the evidence;
• Section 45 twin conditions and applicable provisos;
• Article 21 and prolonged-custody jurisprudence; and
• the correct BNSS or saved CrPC jurisdictional provision.

12.4 In a challenge to cognizance or prosecution complaint

• Identify the precise scheduled offence relied upon in the complaint.
• Compare the complaint narrative with the statutory ingredients.
• Challenge any attempt to bootstrap a non-scheduled offence through a scheduled label.
• Examine whether the predicate offence was alive on the cognizance date.
• Separate the correspondence defect from the absence of proceeds and absence of the accused’s role.

12.5 In attachment and adjudication

Even where the BNS offence corresponds to a scheduled IPC offence, the owner can require ED to establish property-wise derivation, date of acquisition, value, ownership, direct or indirect connection and the statutory basis for equivalent-value attachment.

A Section 8 reply should not be reduced to “BNS is not in the Schedule.” It should contain alternative and cumulative objections so that the defence remains effective even if the forum follows Nagani Akram.

12.6 Before the appellate forum or High Court

Frame the transition question as a legal issue supported by a comparison chart and exact statutory text. Identify whether the challenge concerns:

• the existence of a scheduled offence;
• the scope of the corresponding BNS provision;
• retrospective substantive liability;
• the procedural code applicable to a particular proceeding;
• absence of proceeds of crime;
• jurisdictional error; or
• a combination of these grounds.

13. Common mistakes made by both sides

1. Treating the NCRB table as legislation. It is an authoritative research aid, not an amendment of the PMLA.
2. Mapping by section title alone. Similar titles can conceal different ingredients or newly added limbs.
3. Ignoring the subsection. BNS provisions frequently consolidate several earlier IPC sections.
4. Assuming every forgery is scheduled. IPC Section 468, for example, is not displayed as a standalone Paragraph 1 Part A entry.
5. Assuming every criminal breach of trust is scheduled. The precise statutory foundation must be found elsewhere, if available.
6. Using Section 120B or BNS 61 as a universal gateway. Pavana Dibbur rejects that approach where the object of conspiracy is not independently scheduled.
7. Using the FIR date to decide substantive law. The date of the alleged conduct is critical.
8. Using the FIR date to decide every procedural question. Section 531 can require proceeding-specific analysis.
9. Equating ECIR with FIR. Current binding law treats them differently.
10. Stopping after proving correspondence. The prosecution must still prove proceeds of crime and involvement under Section 3.
11. Relying only on Nagani Akram. The decision must be read with Supreme Court law, its Single Judge status and later developments.
12. Ignoring Article 20(1). A dynamic statutory reference cannot justify disadvantageous retrospective criminalisation.

14. Copy-ready issue memorandum for a live case

PMLA BNS/BNSS TRANSITION ISSUE NOTE

1. Name and number of predicate case:
   [Insert]

2. Period of alleged conduct:
   [Insert each relevant date or transaction period]

3. Date of FIR/complaint:
   [Insert]

4. Exact charged IPC/BNS provisions and subsections:
   [Insert]

5. PMLA Schedule entry relied upon by ED:
   [Insert Part, paragraph, statute and section]

6. Claimed old/new correspondence:
   BNS Section: [Insert]
   IPC counterpart: [Insert]
   PMLA Schedule status of IPC counterpart: [Insert]

7. Ingredient comparison:
   Common ingredients:
   [Insert]

   Material differences or new limbs:
   [Insert]

8. Section 8 General Clauses Act analysis:
   Repeal and re-enactment established: Yes / No
   Contrary legislative intention identified: Yes / No
   Reasons:
   [Insert]

9. Section 358 BNS and Article 20(1):
   [Insert pre/post-1 July 2024 analysis]

10. Section 531 BNSS:
    Investigation pending on 1 July 2024: Yes / No
    Application pending on 1 July 2024: Yes / No
    Trial pending on 1 July 2024: Yes / No
    Applicable procedural code for the present step:
    [Insert with authority]

11. Predicate-case status:
    Pending / closure / discharge / quashing / acquittal / appeal
    [Insert order details]

12. Alleged proceeds of crime:
    Property:
    Value:
    Date generated:
    Scheduled activity said to generate it:
    Evidentiary link:
    [Insert]

13. Person-specific Section 3 role:
    [Insert alleged concealment, possession, acquisition, use,
    projection, claiming, assistance or participation]

14. Proposed relief and forum:
    [Insert]

15. Authorities requiring verification:
    [Insert statutes, judgments, appeal status and jurisdiction]
  

15. Flowchart: how a court should test the PMLA foundation after IPC/CrPC repeal

Plain-text alternative: Date the conduct → identify the exact BNS subsection → locate the IPC counterpart in the PMLA Schedule → compare ingredients and new limbs → apply Section 8, Section 358, Section 531 and Article 20(1) → test the proceeds-of-crime nexus and individual role → record a reasoned finding.

16. Frequently asked questions

Does repeal of the IPC remove the IPC offences from the PMLA Schedule?

Not automatically. Section 8 of the General Clauses Act ordinarily reads a reference to a repealed-and-re-enacted provision as a reference to its corresponding new provision, unless a different intention appears.

Is every BNS offence now a scheduled offence?

No. The exact BNS offence must correspond to an offence actually included in the PMLA Schedule, or another independent Part A or Part C foundation must exist.

Is BNS Section 318(4) a scheduled offence?

It corresponds to IPC Section 420, which appears in Paragraph 1 of Part A. The Bombay High Court recognised this correspondence in Nagani Akram. The cheating ingredients must still be factually alleged and supported.

Is every offence under BNS Section 318 scheduled?

No. Section 318 contains different forms of cheating. The relevant subsection and corresponding IPC entry must be identified.

Is BNS Section 336(3), forgery for cheating, automatically scheduled?

It corresponds to IPC Section 468, which is not displayed as a standalone Paragraph 1 Part A entry. A separate scheduled basis must therefore be identified.

Can BNS organised crime automatically support an ECIR?

BNS Sections 111 and 112 are new offences. Their seriousness does not by itself insert them into Part A. Another valid scheduled offence or scheduled special enactment may nevertheless exist on the particular facts.

Does Notification S.O. 2790(E) amend the PMLA?

According to Nagani Akram, it does not itself possess the force required to amend the PMLA. The correspondence principle was derived from Section 8 and judicial interpretation.

Does BNSS replace every PMLA procedure?

No. The PMLA remains the special statute. BNSS supplies residual procedure only where the PMLA does not provide an inconsistent special rule.

Which law applies if the offence occurred before 1 July 2024 but the FIR was filed later?

The earlier substantive conduct is ordinarily governed by the IPC and its savings. The applicable procedure requires a separate Section 531 analysis, on which High Court approaches have not been completely uniform.

If the FIR was registered before 1 July 2024, must every later bail application use CrPC?

Not necessarily. Delhi and Gauhati High Court rulings have treated a fresh post-commencement application as a BNSS proceeding even where the connected FIR was earlier.

Is an ECIR the same as an F

Related Delhi legal guides

Proceeds of crime analysis · Predicate and scheduled offences · Money-laundering defence guide

Official starting points

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 — India Code · Directorate of Enforcement — official website

Document-first assessment

Start with the latest legal instrument and next deadline

Organise the current summons or order, case identifiers, a dated chronology and the transaction or property record before seeking case-specific advice.

Prepare for consultation