The Supreme Court has held that accused persons are entitled to a list of all documents, statements, and materials collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during investigation but not relied upon in the prosecution complaint. The Court emphasized that such disclosure is essential to ensure the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A three-judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling while setting aside a Delhi High Court judgment that denied pre-trial access to unrelied upon documents in a PMLA case.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Judgment
- Accused Entitled to List of Unrelied Documents: The Bench held that the Special Court must provide a list of statements, documents, and exhibits not relied upon by the ED, alongside the prosecution complaint, to allow the accused to seek production under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS).
- Right to Fair Trial Includes Right to Defence Evidence: Reaffirming the constitutional right to a fair trial, the Court ruled that the accused must be able to lead defence evidence, including documents withheld by the prosecution, by invoking Section 233(3) CrPC (Section 256 BNSS).
- Liberal Approach to Disclosure: Given the reverse burden under Section 24 of the PMLA, the Court instructed that applications for production of documents must be liberally allowed, unless compelling reasons justify denial.
- Applicability at Bail Stage: Notably, the Court permitted the invocation of Section 91 CrPC even at the bail stage under Section 45 PMLA, subject to judicial scrutiny to avoid prejudice to ongoing investigations.
- Recall of Witnesses Permissible: If new documents surface during defence, the accused may seek recall of prosecution witnesses under Section 311 CrPC for further cross-examination.
Implications for PMLA Trials and Article 21 Rights
The judgment clarifies the procedural safeguards available to PMLA accused, asserting that the trial begins upon cognizance, not charge-framing, and the accused must be equipped with all necessary material to discharge the reverse burden. Justice Oka, delivering the verdict, underscored that denying access to potentially exculpatory documents on procedural grounds violates Article 21.
The Bench directed that the following must be furnished to the accused upon cognizance:
- Statements recorded by the Special Judge before taking cognizance.
- Documents, including Section 50 PMLA statements, submitted with the complaint or thereafter till the date of cognizance.
- Supplementary complaints and related documents.
- A list of unrelied-upon documents.
Reversal of Delhi High Court Ruling
The Supreme Court overturned a Delhi High Court judgment which had held that Sections 207 and 208 CrPC do not apply to PMLA and that the prosecution is required to disclose only the documents it intends to rely on. The Apex Court held this interpretation as arbitrary and inconsistent with settled precedent, particularly referencing Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement.
Arguments by ED and Defence Counsels
ASG SV Raju, appearing for the ED, argued against a blanket right to inspection of all materials, citing concerns about delay and irrelevance. He maintained that specific documents can be requested on a prima facie showing of relevance.
In response, Senior Advocates R. Basant and Gopal Sankaranarayanan contended that the accused’s right to access materials essential for defence overrides procedural limitations, especially when the law imposes an adverse presumption.
The appellants relied on Manoj Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that the accused must receive a list of unrelied materials, reinforcing transparency in criminal prosecutions.
Case Details
Case Title: Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case no. Crl.A. No. 1622/2022
