1. Accused in PMLA proceedings challenged orders refusing supply of seized documents and documents relied upon in complaints filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 787
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Sarla Gupta and Another – Appellants
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1622 of 2022, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2024
Decided On : 07-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.Basanth,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Prashanth R.Dixit,Adv. For M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. R.Basant,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR Mr. R.K.Handoo,Adv. Mr. Ashwin kataria,Adv. Mr. Garvit Solanki,Adv. Mr. Raunak,Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha,Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Suryaprakash V.Raju,ASG Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Sharma,Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh,Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Kartik Sabharwal,Adv. Mr. Hitharth Raja,Adv. Ms. Pranjal Tripathi,Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami,Adv. Ms. Aditi Singh, Adv. Ms. Akshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Anand Kirti, Adv. Ms. Bhawna Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Kuhar, Adv. Ms. Anushka Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Divya S. Rao, Adv. Mr. Shyam Bhageria, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Bharadwaj, Adv. Mrs. Sweety Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Saini,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Singh,Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh,Adv. Mr. Animesh Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Sathvik Reddy Sudireddy,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sarkar,Adv. Mr. Satyarth Singh,Adv. Ms. Agrima Singh,Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.Basanth,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Prashanth R.Dixit,Adv. For M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. R.Basant,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR Mr. R.K.Handoo,Adv. Mr. Ashwin kataria,Adv. Mr. Garvit Solanki,Adv. Mr. Raunak,Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha,Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava,Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Suryaprakash V.Raju,ASG Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Sharma,Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma,Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh,Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Kartik Sabharwal,Adv. Mr. Hitharth Raja,Adv. Ms. Pranjal Tripathi,Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami,Adv. Ms. Aditi Singh, Adv. Ms. Akshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Anand Kirti, Adv. Ms. Bhawna Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Kuhar, Adv. Ms. Anushka Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Divya S. Rao, Adv. Mr. Shyam Bhageria, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Bharadwaj, Adv. Mrs. Sweety Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Saini,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Singh,Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh,Adv. Mr. Animesh Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Sathvik Reddy Sudireddy,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sarkar,Adv. Mr. Satyarth Singh,Adv. Ms. Agrima Singh,Adv.
Accused in money laundering cases are entitled to access all documents, including those not relied upon by prosecution, ensuring fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B, Section 420 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 17, 18, 44 - Right to documents - Accused entitled to copies of documents produced with the complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA; provision mandates that all relevant materials must be available for a fair trial - High Court erroneously upheld the denial of such rights to the accused. (Paras 56-57)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 207, 208, 233 - Applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions recognized - Both entitlement to documents relied upon and those not relied upon identified as essential to ensure fairness, particularly at the bail application stage under Section 45(1)(ii). (Paras 55-57)
(C) Fair trial considerations - Emphasis on transparency in criminal proceedings mandates that accused must have access documents that are necessary for their defence to fulfill Article 21 rights. (Paras 55, 56, 57)
Facts of the case:
Challenges to orders of High Court regarding document production requests in proceedings concerning money-laundering offenses with implications for due process rights of accused. Court held that failure to supply documents interferes with fair trial and due process.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court directs the effective provision of documents to ensure fair opportunity for the accused, reiterating that fair trial is a fundamental right protected under Article 21.
Issues: Whether accused are entitled to copies of documents that are not relied upon by the prosecution at the stage of trial or bail; fair trial and due process rights under PMLA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that Sections of Cr.P.C apply alongside PMLA provisions, mandating the supply of relevant documents to the accused. Accessibility of said documents is critical to uphold the tenets of fair trial.
Result: Appeals allowed; ED directed to furnish copies of relevant documents.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The Court holds that accused are entitled to copies of seized documents and records, including those not relied upon by the prosecution, at various stages to ensure fair trial under Article 21. (!) (!) - Under PMLA Sections 17, 18, 20, 21 and 65, Cr.P.C. provisions apply to PMLA proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with PMLA; hence Cr.P.C. disclosure rules apply. (!) (!) - At cognizance and framing of charge under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA, the accused is entitled to copies of the complaint, statements, and documents produced with the complaint; the court must ensure supply of these materials. (!) (!) - The accused may seek copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution at framing of charge (via Section 91 Cr.P.C./Section 94 BNSS) and at defence stage via Section 233(3) Cr.P.C., to ensure fair defence; such requests may be denied only to protect ongoing investigation. (!) (!) - The Supreme Court directs ED to furnish true copies of all documents produced with the complaint and seized documents, including those not relied upon, within one month. (!)
What is... the right of an accused to copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution at the framing of charge under PMLA?
What is... the right to production of documents not relied upon by the prosecution at the stage of entering upon defence under Cr.P.C. rights for PMLA?
What is... the applicability and scope of Cr.P.C. provisions (Sections 200-204, 207-208, 233/243, 91) to proceedings under the PMLA in relation to document disclosure and fair trial?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claimed right to all investigation documents under Article 21 and CrPC; Respondents argued only relied-upon documents are supplyable at the charge-framing stage. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court analyzed PMLA and CrPC provisions, emphasizing that fair trial rights under Article 21 must balance the heavy negative burden placed on PMLA accused. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 )
4. Accused are entitled to copies of seized records, documents relied upon in complaints, and a list of unrelied documents, with rights to seek production during defence or bail. (Para 17 , 19 , 25 , 30 , 41 , 45 , 52 , 55 )
5. Appeals allowed; impugned orders quashed; ED directed to supply copies of documents produced with complaints and documents seized from premises. (Para 56 , 57 )
6. Is a person from whom records are seized under PMLA entitled to copies of those records?
Yes, under Section 21(2) of the PMLA, the person from whom records are seized is entitled to obtain copies of those records as a matter of right. (Para 17 , 55 )
7. What documents must be supplied to an accused upon cognizance of a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA?
The accused must be provided with the complaint, statements recorded by the Special Judge, documents produced with the complaint (including Section 50 statements), and supplementary complaints with their documents. (Para 25 , 30 , 55 )
8. Can an accused seek copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution at the stage of framing charges?
No, while the accused is entitled to a list of unrelied-upon documents, they are not ordinarily entitled to seek copies of such documents at the stage of framing charges. (Para 41 , 55 )
9. When can an accused compel the production of documents not relied upon by the prosecution?
At the stage of entering upon defence, an accused can apply under Section 233(3) CrPC to compel the production of any document or thing, including those in prosecution custody. (Para 44 , 45 , 55 )
10. Can an accused seek production of unrelied-upon documents during a bail application under Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA?
Yes, due to the stringent burden under Section 45(1)(ii), an accused may invoke Section 91 CrPC to seek production of unrelied-upon documents, provided the court ensures investigation is not prejudiced. (Para 52 , 55 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1622 OF 2022
1. Criminal Appeal No. 1622 of 2022 takes an exception to the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 22nd July, 2019, in a writ petition filed by the present appellants. In July 2017, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘the CBI’) registered a First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 4 20 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’). Based on the said FIR, an Enforcement Case Information Report (for short ‘the ECIR’) was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (for short ‘the ED’). A complaint under Section 4 4(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘the PMLA’) was filed before the Special Court on 24th August 2018. The appellants were shown as accused in the complaint. The allegation in the complaint is of the commission of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The Special Judge took cognizance of the offence on 17th September 2018. The appellants were supplied copies of the complaint and some documents relied upon by the prosecution. An application was made by the appellants to the Special Court for the grant of copies of the following categories of documents: (a) documents relied upon in the complaint but not supplied; (b) documents supplied which were not legible and (c) documents collected during the investigation which were suppressed.
2. The ED contested the said application. By the order dated 30th March 2019, the Special Court rejected the said application by holding that the prosecution is under an obligation to supply only those documents which are referred to and relied upon in the complaint/chargesheet and it is under no obligation to supply the documents which were collected during the investigation which were not relied upon. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the said order, which has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2024
3. Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2024 takes an exception to the judgment dated 18th November 2022 in a writ petition filed by the appellants. Even in this case, a complaint was filed under Section 44 of the PMLA and cognizance was taken by the Special Court on 31st August 2021. The appellants were shown as accused therein. In this case, a predicate offence was registered under Section 420 of the IPC. In August 2019, the ED conducted various searches in the office and residential premises of the appellants. The ED seized documents/records/property. Applications were moved under Section 17 of the PMLA seeking a direction to provide a list of the documents seized by the ED and copies of the documents seized. The Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA allowed the applications. An appeal against the said order is pending before the Appellate Authority.
4. The second appellant filed an application before the Special Court seeking a direction to the ED to supply the documents seized during the raids/searches conducted by it to enable the appellants to defend their case before the Special Court. The Special Court rejected the said application by the order dated 22nd March 2022. Accordingly, the appellants filed a petition under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh to challenge the said order. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS
APPELLANTS
5. Detailed submissions have been made in both appeals. In support of Criminal Appeal No. 1622 of 2022, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the right under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. is not restricted to the documents relied upon by the prosecution.
