IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
Sarla Gupta & Another - Appellants
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement & Another - Respondents
W.P.(CRL.). Nos. 1319, 1164 of 2019 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 9696-9697, 8513-8514, 10070 of 2019
Decided On : 22-07-2019
PMLA - Supply of Documents - Section 120-B, Section 420 IPC, Section 13(i)(d) of PC Act, Section 3 r/w Section 4 of PMLA - Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Section 208 Cr.P.C. - Manu Sharma vs. State (2010) 6 SCC 1 - V.K. Sasikala vs. State 2012 (9) SCC 771 - Dharambir vs. CBI ILR (2008) II Delhi 842 - Dinesh Puri vs. State (Govt. of Delhi) 2016 SCC OnLine Delhi 5551 - Yogesh Mittal vs. ED 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6565 - Main legal point: Interpretation of the scope and ambit of application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and Section 208 Cr.P.C. in the context of PMLA proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought setting aside of the order passed by the Special Judge dismissing their applications for supply of deficient/illegible documents in proceedings under PMLA. The petitioners argued that the documents supplied were deficient and not legible, and that further investigation and filing of supplementary complaint were not permissible. The respondent contended that at the pre-charge stage, the petitioners were entitled only to the documents forming part of the charge-sheet/complaint and relied upon by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions and pending applications, stating that neither Section 207 nor Section 208 Cr.P.C. can be applied mutatis mutandis to the proceedings under PMLA. The court emphasized that the stage of pre-charge consideration cannot be construed as a stage of trial, and that the principles enunciated in certain cases would be attracted only during the course of trial, which was not the case at hand.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the petitioners to deficient/illegible documents at the pre-charge stage of PMLA proceedings, and the scope and ambit of application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and Section 208 Cr.P.C. in the context of PMLA proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that at the pre-charge stage, the petitioners were entitled only to the documents forming part of the charge-sheet/complaint and relied upon by the prosecution. The court emphasized that the principles enunciated in certain cases would be attracted only during the course of trial, which was not the case at hand.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed along with pending applications.
JUDGMENT :
CRL.M.A. 9697/2019 in W.P.(CRL.) 1319/2019
CRL.M.A. 8514/2019 in W.P.(CRL.) 1164/2019
Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CRL.M.A. 10070/2019 in W.P.(CRL) 1164/2019
By this application, amended Memo of Parties is sought to be placed on record.
Allowed. Amended Memo of Parties is taken on record. Application stands disposed off.
W.P.(CRL.) 1319/2019 and CRL.M.A. 9696/2019 (for stay)
W.P.(CRL.) 1164/2019 and CRL.M.A. 8513/2019 (for stay)
By the instant writ petitions, the petitioners seek setting aside of the common order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the ld. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-05, PHC, whereby, the respective applications filed by the petitioners seeking supply of deficient/illegible documents detailed there-under, came to be dismissed.
2. Concisely, the facts relevant to the subject matter are that on the registration of an FIR dated 05.07.2017 for the alleged contravention of Section 120-B r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in short 'the PC Act' – charge-sheets in respect whereof have been filed – the respondent Directorate of Enforcement recorded an Enforcement Case Information Report i.e. ECIR on 26.07.2017, and, thereby, initiated investigations under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in short 'PMLA' against Lara Projects LLP (erstwhile Delight Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd./DMCPL) and its Directors/Shareholders; attachment proceedings under Section 5 of PMLA; and; also, filed a criminal complaint under Section 3 r/w Section 4 of PMLA inter-alia against the petitioners. In the proceedings so initiated, the petitioners filed the subject applications, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petitions.
3. In W.P.(Crl.) 1319/2019 the impugned order is assailed on the plea that the proceedings before the ld. Special Judge in PMLA are governed by the provisions of Cr.P.C. and require strict compliance of Section 208 Cr.P.C. According to the said petitioners, the documents supplied by the respondent run into eight volumes with 3535 pages and on a preliminary scrutiny, it was revealed that there were deficiencies and certain documents had not come to be supplied. In continuation thereof, it is also urged that any further investigation and filing of supplementary complaint is not permissible in law. In W.P.(Crl.) 1164/2019, the petitioners plead that on the preliminary scrutiny of the documents relied upon and supplied by the respondent, the documents detailed in the application were found deficient besides few documents being not legible and therefore, the application made under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was required to be granted.
4. In the submissions of the ld. counsel for the petitioners, the deficient documents sought were the documents, which find mention in the documents furnished and thus, form integral part of the relied upon documents and in the absence thereof, the consideration on charge would be infracted and may not be fair. It is also the submission of the ld. counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(Crl.) 1319/2019 that the ld. Special Judge erred in drawing parity in Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. In support of such submissions reliance is placed upon Manu Sharma vs. State (2010) 6 SCC 1 and V.K. Sasikala vs. State 2012 (9) SCC 771.
5. In the submissions on behalf of the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, the ld. Special Judge has primarily rejected the prayer made on the ground that at the stage of framing of charges, while considering application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. only the documents relied upon by the prosecution and filed along with the complaint were to be supplied. In addition, according to the respondent, the right of the respondent to file supplementary complaint was well recognized in Yogesh Mittal vs. ED 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6565. In the submissions of the ld. counsel for the respondent, the scope and ambit of application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.