Back
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Sarla Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
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 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
