Back
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
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. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the appeals and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments made by appellants and the ed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's observations on document supply. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal provisions concerning document retention and rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. rights of the accused regarding document access. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. provisions under cr.p.c. applicable to pmla. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. court's procedure for document requests. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 8. threshold for invoking rights under cr.p.c. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. rights of defense in trial proceedings. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 10. conclusion on rights against prosecution's evidence. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 11. final orders relating to document supply. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
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 Sp
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
