Madras HC quashes order taking cognisance of ED complaint against drug smuggling accused Jaffer Sadiq
You don’t have any Active Subscription.
Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription
The Madras High Court has set aside an order passed by a Chennai sessions court which had taken cognisance of a money laundering complaint lodged by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against drug smuggling accused Jaffer Sadiq without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, however, restored the complaint and directed the court concerned to proceed in accordance with Section Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which mandates an opportunity of hearing.
The orders were passed while partly allowing a petition filed by the accused to quash the entire proceedings initiated against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. ED Special Public Prosecutor P. Sidharthan vehemently opposed the plea for quashing the entire case.
In his quash petition, the accused said, the ED had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against him and a few others on March 11, 2024 on the basis of three drug smuggling cases which had been shown as the predicate offences for the purpose of invoking the PMLA.
The first drug case was related to seizure of 50.070 kg of pseudoephedrine by the Narcotics Control Bureau in New Delhi in 2024 and the second case was connected to 38.867 kgs of ketamine seized by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch of Mumbai Customs in 2019.
The third case relied upon by the ED was the seizure of 50 kg of pseudoephedrine by the Chennai customs in 2015, the petitioner said and claimed that he was not even aware of any such case pending against him since 2015 until the ED referred to it in its 2024 ECIR.
Stating that verification of records revealed that he had not been named as an accused in the 2015 case and not issued with any summons/notices, the petitioner alleged that the ED had deliberately relied upon an unconnected case in order to attach properties he had purchased since 2015.
In so far as the 2019 case was concerned, he claimed to have been discharged from it by the Bombay High Court on August 13, 2026 and said, the 2024 case was the only prosecution pending against him before a special court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Patiala House in New Delhi.
He complained the Chennai sessions court had, nevertheless, taken cognisance of ED’s complaint on October 18, 2024 without affording an opportunity of hearing to him as contemplated under Section 223(1) of the BNSS which came into force on July 1, 2024.
The petitioner also relied upon Supreme Court’s May 25, 2025 judgement in Kushal Kumar Agarwal versus Directorate of Enforcement wherein it was categorically held that after the coming into force of BNSS, courts should not take cognisance of an offence without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused.
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.
