The Madras High Court has intervened in the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case against alleged drug smuggling accused Jaffer Sadiq, holding that a Chennai sessions court could not have taken cognisance of the complaint without first giving him an opportunity to be heard. In a significant procedural ruling, Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan set aside the cognisance order passed by the sessions court, but stopped short of terminating the prosecution itself.
The bench restored the ED complaint and directed the court concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or BNSS, the new criminal procedure law that came into force on July 1, 2024. The provision mandates that before a court takes cognisance of an offence on a complaint, the accused must be given an opportunity of hearing. The High Court's ruling underscores the growing judicial emphasis on procedural safeguards under the BNSS, particularly in cases where liberty, property attachment and serious economic offences intersect.
The orders were passed while partly allowing a petition filed by Jaffer Sadiq seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The ED's Special Public Prosecutor, P. Sidharthan, strongly opposed the plea and argued against quashing the case in its entirety. The court's decision means the money laundering complaint survives, but the cognisance stage will have to be revisited in compliance with the hearing requirement.
In his petition, Sadiq said the ED had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report, or ECIR, against him and others on March 11, 2024, relying on three drug smuggling cases treated as predicate offences for invoking the PMLA. He argued that the foundation of the money laundering case was itself flawed and that the agency had relied on cases that were either unconnected to him or not properly attributable to him.
The first predicate case involved the seizure of 50.070 kg of pseudoephedrine by the Narcotics Control Bureau in New Delhi in 2024. The second related to 38.867 kg of ketamine seized by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch of Mumbai Customs in 2019. The third case cited by the ED concerned the seizure of 50 kg of pseudoephedrine by Chennai Customs in 2015. Sadiq claimed he was not even aware of that 2015 case until the ED referred to it in the 2024 ECIR.
He further contended that verification of records showed he had not been named as an accused in the 2015 case and had not been issued any summons or notices. According to him, the ED had deliberately relied on an unconnected case in order to attach properties he had purchased since 2015. The petition also stated that in relation to the 2019 case, he had been discharged by the Bombay High Court on August 13, 2026, and that the 2024 case was the only prosecution currently pending against him before a special court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in Patiala House, New Delhi.
A central part of his challenge was that the Chennai sessions court had taken cognisance of the ED's complaint on October 18, 2024 without hearing him, despite the BNSS requirement. He relied on the Supreme Court's May 25, 2025 judgment in Kushal Kumar Agarwal versus Directorate of Enforcement, in which the apex court held that after the BNSS came into force, courts should not take cognisance of an offence without giving the accused an opportunity of hearing.
The High Court's ruling does not decide the merits of the money laundering allegations, but it does reinforce the procedural obligations now embedded in the criminal process. For the ED, the case remains alive. For Sadiq, the order offers a temporary but meaningful reprieve, ensuring that the lower court must hear him before moving ahead on cognisance. The matter now returns to the sessions court, where the complaint will have to be considered again under the BNSS framework.
The decision is likely to be watched closely by prosecutors and defence lawyers alike, especially in high-profile enforcement cases where the timing of cognisance, the role of predicate offences and the rights of the accused are increasingly being tested under the new criminal law regime. In this instance, the High Court has drawn a clear line: the complaint may proceed, but not at the cost of the hearing rights guaranteed by law.