When Does BNSS or CrPC Procedure Apply to PMLA? Understanding the Section 65 “Insofar as Not Inconsistent” Test

A provision-by-provision 2026 guide to investigation, Section 50 summons, arrest, remand, document supply, prosecution complaint, trial, defence evidence, appeal and revision under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act

By Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Last legally verified: 13 August 2026

Direct Answer

Section 65 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not make the entire ordinary criminal-procedure code automatically applicable to every ED action.

It creates a controlled rule of incorporation.

The general criminal-procedure regime applies to PMLA proceedings only insofar as it is not inconsistent with the special provisions of the PMLA.

The correct legal sequence is:

IDENTIFY THE EXACT PROCEDURAL ISSUE
        ↓
CHECK WHETHER PMLA ITSELF REGULATES IT
        ↓
IF PMLA CONTAINS A COMPLETE / SPECIAL RULE
        ↓
APPLY PMLA
        ↓
IF THERE IS A GENUINE PROCEDURAL GAP
        ↓
IDENTIFY THE RELEVANT CrPC / BNSS PROVISION
        ↓
TEST FOR INCONSISTENCY
        ↓
NO CONFLICT → GENERAL PROCEDURE MAY SUPPLEMENT PMLA
        ↓
CONFLICT → SPECIAL PMLA RULE PREVAILS

That methodology is more accurate than either of these extreme propositions:

“PMLA is a complete code, therefore BNSS never applies.”

or

“Section 65 imports every BNSS provision into every ED proceeding.”

Both statements are overbroad.

1. The Three Provisions That Must Be Read Together: Sections 46, 65 and 71 PMLA

Section 46 — Proceedings Before the Special Court

Section 46 makes the general criminal-procedure regime applicable to proceedings before the PMLA Special Court, save as otherwise provided in the PMLA.

It also treats the Special Court as a Court of Session for this procedural purpose.

Section 65 — Wider Procedural Incorporation

Section 65 extends the general criminal-procedure regime, subject to consistency, to:

• arrest;
• search and seizure;
• attachment;
• confiscation;
• investigation;
• prosecution; and
• all other proceedings under the PMLA.

Section 71 — Overriding Effect

Section 71 gives the PMLA overriding effect over anything inconsistent with it in another law.

The correct synthesis is therefore:

GENERAL PROCEDURE ENTERS THROUGH SECTIONS 46/65, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT PMLA HAS NOT DISPLACED IT.

2. Section 71 Does Not Make Section 65 Meaningless

A common drafting error is:

“Section 71 says PMLA overrides every other law; therefore no CrPC/BNSS right can apply.”

That interpretation would substantially empty Section 65 of content.

The Supreme Court has explained that where a particular CrPC provision validly enters the PMLA framework through Section 65 because no inconsistency exists, Section 71 cannot then be invoked merely to destroy that incorporation.

Therefore the sequence is:

SECTION 65
→ TEST WHETHER GENERAL PROCEDURE IS CONSISTENT
→ IF CONSISTENT, IT APPLIES

SECTION 71
→ OPERATES WHEN THERE IS ACTUAL INCONSISTENCY

3. Before Applying Section 65 in 2026, Ask: CrPC or BNSS?

The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024 and repealed the CrPC.

Therefore a current pleading should not mechanically cite an old CrPC section without first determining whether:

• the proceeding is saved under the CrPC;
• the corresponding BNSS provision now governs; or
• a particular procedural stage commenced only after BNSS came into force.

Section 531 BNSS contains the relevant savings architecture.

It expressly deals with a pending:

• appeal;
• application;
• trial;
• inquiry;
• investigation.

Accordingly, the date of the ECIR alone does not necessarily answer every procedural question arising years later.

4. Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement — The 2026 Supreme Court Transition Test

The Supreme Court's decision in Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 INSC 519 is now essential for post-BNSS PMLA procedure.

The prosecution complaint had been filed on 24 June 2024.

BNSS commenced on 1 July 2024.

The Special Court took cognizance on 2 July 2024.

The issue was whether the proceeding was already saved under the CrPC merely because the complaint had been filed before BNSS commenced.

The Supreme Court rejected an automatic saving theory based merely on filing/numbering.

It applied the BNSS cognizance procedure and held that the accused was entitled to the hearing contemplated by the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS.

The larger drafting lesson is:

IDENTIFY THE PROCEDURAL EVENT THAT WAS ACTUALLY PENDING OR HAD ACTUALLY COMMENCED ON 1 JULY 2024.

5. The Six-Question Section 65 Test

For every disputed procedural provision, ask six questions.

Question 1 — What exact procedure is disputed?

Avoid abstractions.

Specify:

• summons;
• search;
• arrest;
• remand;
• bail;
• document production;
• cognizance;
• summoning of accused;
• charge;
• defence evidence;
• appeal.

Question 2 — Does PMLA expressly regulate that subject?

If yes, start there.

Question 3 — Is the PMLA rule intended to be special/exclusive?

Look for:

• non-obstante language;
• special threshold;
• special authority;
• special safeguards;
• special complaint mechanism;
• different evidentiary status.

Question 4 — What exact BNSS/CrPC provision is being invoked?

Identify it precisely.

Question 5 — Can both provisions operate together?

If yes, supplementation is possible.

Question 6 — What is the consequence of violation?

Applicability does not automatically mean that every breach nullifies the proceeding.

6. Investigation: Why Ordinary Police Chapter-XII Procedure Does Not Simply Control ED Investigation

This is one of the clearest examples of PMLA-specific displacement.

The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary explained that the PMLA contains a special machinery concerning:

• information relating to money laundering;
• survey;
• search;
• seizure;
• summons;
• statements;
• production of records;
• arrest;
• prosecution complaint.

The ED investigation is therefore not merely a police investigation under the ordinary FIR/Chapter-XII structure.

This is why:

ECIR ≠ FIR for every procedural purpose.

Ordinary police-registration rules cannot simply be imported where the PMLA creates a materially different investigative architecture.

7. Section 50 Summons: Why Section 160/161 CrPC Cannot Simply Be Transplanted

This issue was addressed directly in Abhishek Banerjee v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 668.

The argument was that Section 160 CrPC restrictions governing police attendance should apply to Section 50 PMLA summons through Section 65.

The Supreme Court rejected the mechanical transplantation.

The Court emphasised material differences between:

• a police investigation under Chapter XII CrPC; and
• the Section 50 PMLA inquiry/summons regime.

Section 50 itself contains powers concerning:

• attendance;
• examination;
• truthful statements;
• production of records;
• consequences of non-compliance.

Therefore:

SECTION 50 SPECIAL PROCEDURE
        +
INCONSISTENT POLICE-INVESTIGATION RULE
        =
SECTION 50 PREVAILS

8. Search and Seizure: Sections 17 and 18 Are the Starting Point

Search and seizure under PMLA cannot be tested by beginning with ordinary police search provisions and then asking whether ED complied with them.

Begin with:

• Section 17;
• Section 18;
• relevant PMLA rules;
• reasons-to-believe requirements;
• authorised officer;
• post-seizure statutory procedure.

Only after understanding that statutory code should one ask whether a general procedural rule fills a genuine gap.

If the proposed general rule would replace a specific Section 17/18 threshold, officer, safeguard or procedure, inconsistency is likely.

9. Arrest: Section 19 Is the Special Arrest Gateway

The authority to arrest for the money-laundering offence arises from Section 19 PMLA.

Accordingly, the legality of the arrest itself should initially be tested through:

• the authorised officer;
• statutory reason-to-believe requirement;
• material in possession;
• communication of grounds;
• statutory forwarding/production safeguards;
• current constitutional jurisprudence governing Section 19.

Ordinary arrest provisions cannot be used to erase or substitute the safeguards specifically enacted in Section 19.

But the analysis changes after lawful PMLA arrest when PMLA becomes silent on subsequent custody mechanics.

10. Post-Arrest Production and Remand: General Criminal Procedure Fills the Gap

The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal expressly recognised an important transition:

Up to arrest, the PMLA contains specialised investigation/arrest provisions.

After arrest, ordinary criminal procedure governs matters for which PMLA contains no inconsistent rule, including production of the arrested person before the competent judicial forum and subsequent custody procedure.

For older/saved proceedings, the familiar remand provision is Section 167 CrPC.

For current BNSS-governed proceedings, counsel should examine the corresponding BNSS remand architecture, including Section 187.

The correct submission is therefore not:

“Section 167/187 created ED's arrest power.”

It did not.

The better distinction is:

POWER TO ARREST
→ SECTION 19 PMLA

POST-ARREST JUDICIAL CUSTODY / REMAND PROCEDURE
→ GENERAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
TO THE EXTENT PMLA IS SILENT AND CONSISTENT

11. Default Bail / Statutory Custody: Do Not Confuse the Complaint With a Police Charge-Sheet

PMLA prosecution begins through an authorised prosecution complaint before the Special Court.

It is not converted into an ordinary police report merely because the general remand/default-bail framework applies after arrest.

Accordingly, counsel should separately analyse:

• date/time of arrest;
• judicial production;
• applicable saved CrPC or BNSS regime;
• statutory custody period;
• date of prosecution complaint;
• what filing satisfies the applicable statutory requirement;
• whether the accused asserted the default-bail right before the relevant event.

The Section 65 exercise therefore supplements custody procedure without changing the statutory nature of the ED prosecution complaint.

12. Bail: General Bail Powers Survive, but Section 45 Adds the Special PMLA Barrier

Bail is a useful illustration of partial incorporation rather than total displacement.

The general criminal-procedure code supplies:

• bail jurisdiction;
• application procedure;
• bond mechanics;
• High Court / Sessions powers where applicable.

But Section 45 PMLA creates additional specialised restrictions.

Therefore:

GENERAL BAIL JURISDICTION + SECTION 45 PMLA = PMLA BAIL ANALYSIS.

The ordinary bail code cannot be used to bypass Section 45.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this Section 65/71 interaction.

13. Prosecution Complaint and Cognizance: General Complaint Procedure Can Fill the Gap

Section 44 PMLA creates the prosecution-complaint mechanism and permits the designated Special Court to deal with the Section 3/4 offence.

But PMLA does not prescribe every procedural step governing judicial consideration of that complaint.

That is where Section 46/65 becomes important.

The Supreme Court's line of authorities culminating in Parvinder Singh, 2026 INSC 519 recognises that general complaint/cognizance procedure applies where there is no inconsistency.

Under the current BNSS regime, the first proviso to Section 223(1) gives the accused a pre-cognizance hearing in the circumstances governed by that provision.

Parvinder Singh treated the safeguard as mandatory in the case before it.

14. Why Parvinder Singh Is More Than a Cognizance Case

Its deeper importance lies in the Section 65 methodology.

The Court effectively asked:

1. Does PMLA contain a rule inconsistent with the BNSS hearing requirement?
2. If not, does the general BNSS rule apply through Sections 46/65?
3. Was the matter actually saved under the old CrPC by Section 531?

Because no inconsistent PMLA rule displaced the BNSS safeguard, it applied.

This is exactly how Section 65 should be argued provision-by-provision.

15. Document Supply: Sarla Gupta Is Now a Core Section 65 Authority

In Sarla Gupta & Another v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 645, the Supreme Court gave detailed guidance concerning documents in PMLA prosecutions.

Important conclusions include:

• true copies of specified records/title documents seized under Sections 17/18 must be supplied to the person from whom they were seized;
• after cognizance, the complaint and documents produced with it must be supplied;
• Section 50 statements produced with the complaint fall within the disclosure architecture;
• documents accompanying supplementary complaints must be supplied;
• a list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits not relied upon must also be furnished.

This is a powerful example of ordinary criminal-procedure/fair-trial principles supplementing the PMLA rather than being displaced by it.

16. Section 91 CrPC / Section 94 BNSS: Production of Documents

Sarla Gupta expressly held that the Court-production mechanism represented by:

Section 91 CrPC → Section 94 BNSS

can operate in PMLA proceedings because the Court found no inconsistent PMLA provision.

But stage matters.

At charge stage

Ordinarily, an accused cannot demand every unrelied document merely to expand charge consideration beyond the prosecution material.

At bail stage under Section 45

Sarla Gupta recognised that an accused may invoke Section 91 CrPC / Section 94 BNSS to seek production of unrelied material relevant to discharging the extraordinary Section 45 burden.

Where investigation remains ongoing, ED may object that disclosure would prejudice the investigation, but the issue is for judicial scrutiny.

At defence stage

The defence-production mechanism becomes particularly important because Section 24 PMLA places a significant evidentiary burden on the accused.

17. Trial: The Special Court Is Special, But the Trial Is Not Procedure-Free

Section 46 treats the PMLA Special Court as a Court of Session for applicable criminal-procedure purposes.

The general Sessions-trial framework therefore supplies trial mechanics unless inconsistent with PMLA.

PMLA-specific substantive/evidentiary rules still operate, including:

• Section 3 offence architecture;
• Section 24 presumption;
• Section 45 implications where bail remains relevant;
• Section 50 evidentiary material;
• Section 44 Special Court structure.

The two regimes therefore coexist.

18. Defence Evidence: Section 233 CrPC / Section 256 BNSS

Sarla Gupta provides an especially important illustration.

The Supreme Court recognised applicability of:

Section 233(3) CrPC / Section 256(3) BNSS

for defence requests requiring:

• attendance of defence witnesses;
• production of documents;
• production from ED;
• production from third parties.

The Court linked this safeguard to Article 21 and to the accused's need to rebut the Section 24 presumption.

In other words:

THE SPECIAL PMLA BURDEN CAN MAKE ORDINARY FAIR-TRIAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS MORE IMPORTANT, NOT LESS IMPORTANT.

19. Recall of Witnesses: Section 311 CrPC / Section 348 BNSS

Sarla Gupta further recognised that where a defence document is later produced and further cross-examination of an earlier prosecution witness becomes necessary, the accused may invoke:

Section 311 CrPC / Section 348 BNSS.

Again, the reasoning is based on the fair-trial function of the general procedural provision and absence of a conflicting PMLA rule.

20. A Provision-by-Provision Matrix

Procedural Question	PMLA Rule	General Procedure	Section 65 Result
Registration/investigation of money-laundering offence	Special PMLA investigative architecture	Ordinary police FIR/Chapter-XII regime	PMLA predominates; ordinary police procedure cannot simply replace it
Section 50 summons	Section 50	Sections 160/161 CrPC-type police-investigation provisions	Inconsistent rules displaced
Search/seizure	Sections 17/18	Ordinary search/seizure rules	PMLA special requirements control where inconsistent
Power to arrest	Section 19	General arrest provisions	Section 19 is the special statutory gateway
Post-arrest remand/custody	PMLA does not exhaustively regulate custody mechanics	CrPC/BNSS remand regime	General procedure supplements where consistent
Bail	Section 45	General bail jurisdiction/procedure	General procedure applies subject to Section 45
Prosecution complaint	Section 44	General complaint/cognizance provisions	General procedure supplements absent inconsistency
Pre-cognizance hearing	No inconsistent exclusion identified	Section 223 BNSS	Applicable under current Supreme Court law
Document production	No blanket inconsistent bar	Section 91 CrPC / 94 BNSS	Applicable subject to stage and investigation prejudice
Defence evidence	No inconsistent bar	Section 233 CrPC / 256 BNSS	Applicable
Recall of witness	No inconsistent bar	Section 311 CrPC / 348 BNSS	Applicable
Criminal appeal/revision from Special Court	Section 47 expressly incorporates High Court criminal appellate/revisional powers	General appellate/revisional code	Applies through the express statutory gateway

21. Appellate Consequences: Do Not Mix the Two PMLA Appellate Tracks

PMLA contains more than one appellate architecture.

Criminal Special Court Track

Section 47 concerns High Court appeal/revision powers relating to the Special Court and incorporates the ordinary criminal appellate/revisional framework.

Attachment / Adjudication Track

Orders arising from attachment/adjudication follow the separate statutory route including:

• Section 26 — appeal to Appellate Tribunal;
• Section 42 — appeal to High Court on the statutory basis prescribed there.

Section 65 cannot be used to erase these specialised appellate routes.

Therefore:

SPECIAL COURT CRIMINAL ORDER
→ SECTION 47 + APPLICABLE CRIMINAL APPELLATE PROCEDURE

ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY ORDER
→ SECTION 26 TRIBUNAL

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER
→ SECTION 42 HIGH COURT

22. “Gap” and “Conflict” Are Different

Counsel should distinguish:

True Gap

PMLA does not regulate an incidental procedural matter at all.

General procedure may fill it.

Partial Coverage

PMLA regulates the core power but not every later judicial step.

Example:

SECTION 19
→ SPECIAL ARREST POWER

REMAND AFTER ARREST
→ GENERAL PROCEDURE MAY SUPPLEMENT

Direct Conflict

General provision imposes a materially different procedure on a subject specially regulated by PMLA.

Example:

SECTION 50 SUMMONS
vs
POLICE-INVESTIGATION ATTENDANCE RESTRICTION

The special PMLA scheme prevails where the two are genuinely inconsistent.

23. How to Identify “Inconsistency”

The following questions are useful:

1. Can both provisions be obeyed simultaneously?
2. Would applying the BNSS/CrPC rule defeat a power expressly created by PMLA?
3. Would it substitute a different officer or authority?
4. Would it add a prerequisite PMLA deliberately omits?
5. Would it remove a safeguard PMLA expressly imposes?
6. Would it dilute Section 45?
7. Would it alter the statutory Section 50 character?
8. Would it replace the Section 19 arrest threshold?
9. Would it bypass the statutory appellate route?

If both provisions can coexist without frustrating the special statute, supplementation is more likely.

24. “PMLA Is a Self-Contained Code” Is Not the End of the Argument

The expression must be used carefully.

PMLA unquestionably creates a specialised scheme.

But the Legislature itself enacted:

• Section 46;
• Section 47;
• Section 65.

Those provisions deliberately connect PMLA proceedings with the general criminal-procedure system.

Therefore the accurate proposition is:

PMLA IS SELF-CONTAINED ON MATTERS IT SPECIALLY REGULATES; GENERAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CONTINUES TO OPERATE WHERE THE PMLA INCORPORATES IT AND NO INCONSISTENCY EXISTS.

25. Drafting a Section 65 Objection: Use a Five-Column Method

Issue	PMLA Provision	BNSS/CrPC Provision	Conflict or Gap?	Relief
Section 50 attendance	Section 50	[Exact provision relied upon]	Direct inconsistency?	Apply special PMLA rule
Post-arrest remand	Section 19	Section 187 BNSS / saved CrPC	PMLA silent on detailed remand mechanics	Apply general custody safeguard
Document production	Sections 44/46/65	Section 94 BNSS	No inconsistent bar	Seek production
Defence evidence	Sections 24/46/65	Section 256 BNSS	No conflict	Issue process for witness/document

This is substantially stronger than pleading:

“BNSS applies to PMLA and therefore the application deserves to be allowed.”

26. Procedural Violation Does Not Always Produce the Same Remedy

After proving applicability, separately identify the consequence.

Ask:

• Is the provision mandatory?
• Does the statute itself prescribe consequence?
• Does violation affect jurisdiction?
• Does it affect liberty?
• Is prejudice required?
• Can the defect be cured?
• Does the irregularity vitiate cognizance?
• Does it create a default-bail right?
• Is revision/appeal the correct remedy?

For example, Parvinder Singh treated the applicable pre-cognizance safeguard as mandatory and the defective cognizance as legally unsustainable.

That consequence should not automatically be copied onto an unrelated procedural defect.

27. Defence Checklist Before Citing BNSS in a PMLA Case

1. Identify the date of ECIR.
2. Identify the date of arrest, if any.
3. Identify the date of prosecution complaint.
4. Identify the date of cognizance.
5. Identify whether any application/trial/inquiry/investigation was pending on 1 July 2024.
6. Apply Section 531 BNSS before selecting the procedural code.
7. Identify the exact PMLA section regulating the subject.
8. Identify the corresponding BNSS/CrPC provision.
9. Explain why simultaneous compliance is possible or impossible.
10. Address Section 71 expressly.
11. Identify the controlling Supreme Court authority.
12. State the procedural consequence sought.

28. Section 65 Decision Tree

29. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Does BNSS apply to PMLA cases after 1 July 2024?

Yes where the proceeding is governed by the post-1 July 2024 procedure and the BNSS provision is not inconsistent with the PMLA. Section 531 savings must still be examined for earlier pending proceedings.

Q2. Does an old ECIR automatically mean CrPC applies forever?

No. The relevant pending appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation and the particular procedural event must be analysed under Section 531 BNSS.

Q3. Does Section 65 make every BNSS provision applicable?

No. Only provisions not inconsistent with the PMLA apply.

Q4. Does Section 71 completely exclude BNSS?

No. Section 71 resolves inconsistency; Sections 46 and 65 themselves incorporate general criminal procedure where consistent.

Q5. Does ordinary FIR procedure apply to an ECIR?

Not mechanically. The Supreme Court has treated the PMLA investigation and prosecution architecture as materially different from ordinary Chapter-XII police investigation.

Q6. Does Section 160 CrPC apply to a Section 50 PMLA summons?

The Supreme Court in Abhishek Banerjee rejected the mechanical application of that police-investigation provision to Section 50 because of the inconsistent statutory schemes.

Q7. Does ordinary remand procedure apply after a Section 19 arrest?

General remand/custody procedure applies to the extent PMLA does not provide an inconsistent post-arrest rule. The applicable current BNSS or saved CrPC provision must first be identified.

Q8. Can an accused invoke Section 94 BNSS for documents?

Yes in appropriate PMLA proceedings. Sarla Gupta recognised the corresponding Section 91 CrPC / Section 94 BNSS document-production power, subject to stage-specific limitations.

Q9. Is the accused entitled to all unrelied documents at charge stage?

Not ordinarily to copies of all such material merely for charge consideration. Sarla Gupta nevertheless requires supply of the list of unrelied statements/documents/material objects and recognises later production rights.

Q10. Can Section 94 BNSS be used during a Section 45 bail hearing?

Sarla Gupta recognised that an accused may seek relevant unrelied material at bail stage, subject to a judicially assessed objection that disclosure could prejudice an ongoing investigation.

Q11. Can the defence compel production of evidence during trial?

Yes. The general defence-evidence procedure corresponding to Section 233 CrPC / Section 256 BNSS applies where not inconsistent.

Q12. Can a prosecution witness be recalled after a defence document is produced?

Sarla Gupta recognises the applicability of the witness-recall mechanism corresponding to Section 311 CrPC / Section 348 BNSS.

Q13. Is Section 223 BNSS applicable to a PMLA prosecution complaint?

Current Supreme Court authority, including Parvinder Singh, applies the BNSS complaint/cognizance safeguard where the matter is governed by BNSS and no inconsistent PMLA rule exists.

Q14. Does a prosecution complaint become a police charge-sheet?

No. Its procedural treatment may draw upon general criminal procedure, but its statutory source remains Section 44 PMLA.

Q15. Does Section 47 PMLA govern every PMLA appeal?

No. Section 47 concerns the criminal Special Court appellate/revisional framework. Attachment/adjudication proceedings follow Sections 26 and 42.

30. AI-Search Quick Answer

Section 65 PMLA does not make the BNSS or CrPC universally applicable to every ED proceeding. The correct test is provision-specific: first identify whether PMLA contains its own rule; if it does, determine whether the proposed general procedural provision conflicts with that special rule. Where there is inconsistency, PMLA prevails; where PMLA is silent and both regimes can operate together, the general criminal-procedure code fills the gap. This is why Section 50 summons are governed primarily by the special PMLA framework, while post-arrest remand, document-production rights, defence evidence and criminal appellate procedure may draw upon the general code. After 1 July 2024, counsel must also determine whether BNSS applies or whether Section 531 saves the particular pending proceeding under CrPC.

31. Related PMLA Research

• PMLA After the Repeal of IPC and CrPC: How BNS Scheduled Offences and BNSS Procedure Apply
• ED Filed a Prosecution Complaint? RUDs, Unrelied Documents and Special Court Procedure
• Which PMLA Special Court Has Territorial Jurisdiction in a Multi-State Case?
• Transfer of the Scheduled-Offence Case to the PMLA Special Court: Why the Two Trials Are Not a Joint Trial
• PMLA Bare Act Guide 2026: Important Sections Every Accused, Company and Professional Should Know

32. Official Sources and Leading Authorities

• India Code — Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
• India Code — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
• India Code — General Clauses Act, 1897
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 INSC 757.
• Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1006.
• Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 217.
• Abhishek Banerjee v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 668.
• Sarla Gupta & Another v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 645.
• Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 INSC 519.

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal research and does not substitute for case-specific advice.

Whether a BNSS or saved CrPC provision applies to a particular PMLA proceeding depends upon the exact statutory issue, procedural stage, commencement/saving rules, PMLA provision involved and controlling judicial precedent.

The expression “insofar as not inconsistent” requires a provision-by-provision analysis. Neither a blanket claim that PMLA excludes all general criminal procedure nor a blanket claim that every BNSS provision applies is legally safe.

Procedural law in this area is developing rapidly and current Supreme Court and statutory developments should be verified before filing or arguing any application.

Related Delhi legal guides

Economic-offence proceedings · White-collar crime defence · SFIO investigation guide

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