SC in a 2022 case Sarla Gupta Vs Directorate of Enforcement has reserved its judgment on whether investigating agency can deprive accused crucial documents it is relying on in a PMLA case in pre-trial stage.
Before reserving verdict the court grilled ED over its stand that accused cannot ask for all documents the prosecution was relying on.
SC told Additional Solicitor General S V Raju who appeared for ED that in a PMLA case, you may retrieve thousands of documents but you only rely on 50 of them. Accused may not remember every document. He may then ask that whatever document has been recovered from my place.
“What is the right of an accused to see a document, we will decide. We will decide the question”, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih said reserving the verdict.
Just before concluding the hearing, Bench asked ASG Raju who appeared for ED: Sometimes there may be such a clinching document which ED may had. You say that this clinching document cannot be made available to the accused after filing of chargesheet. Whether it does not vitiate his right under Article 21
Justice Oka asked Can in today's world we say that there are some clinching documents against accused, but due to some technicality under PMLA, we cannot give them? Can this exist today?
Justice Amanullah chipped in asking " Why can't everything be transparent?
ASG Raju maintained that till the trial begins, the accused is only entitled to a list of the documents. He further submitted that under Section 102 of CrPC, even if documents are seized from the accused's premises, the accused are only entitled to a list, not the documents themselves.
SC is examining the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (or its new replacement the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) to cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on the issue of the prosecution's obligation to supply documents to the accused. A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih is hearing an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment that held that the prosecution is not required to furnish documents, on which it is not going to rely, to the accused at the pre-trial stage.
ASG Raju countered that “I am not saying that if the accused knows that there are documents, he can ask that but if he does not know and just have assumption, he cannot seek roving enquiry on this.
Justice Amanullah said Mr Raju, please make us clear one thing. Don't you think Article 21 would be vitiated if you do not provide such documents.
Justice Oka reminded : Also, see in a PMLA case, you may retrieve thousands of documents but you only rely on 50 of them. Accused may not remember every document. He may then ask that whatever document has been recovered from my place.
ASG Raju informs the Court that the accused has list of documents. Suppose the prosecution has gathered some document, it does not bother the trial, but it throws light on some other offence may have been committed. If he gets hold of this document, he may vitiate the investigation.