$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 455/2025, CRL.M.A. 33366/2025 & CRL.M.A.

33367/2025 HARMEET SINGH OBEROI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Divyansh Jain, Mr. Paritosh Jain and Mr. R. Madhav Bera, Advocates.

versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel counsel along with Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 12.11.2025

1. The present petition under Section 438 read with Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [“BNSS”] assails order dated 31^st October, 2025, passed by ASJ-02, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi, in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The impugned order reads as follows:

“1. Today, the matter is fixed for arguments on the point of cognizance.

2. Arguments on point of cognizance heard on behalf of accused no.

2.

3. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 seeks adjournment due to some personal difficulty. Same is granted.

4. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 4 submits that he has moved two application one u/sec. 231 BNSS and u/sec. 94 BNSS. Reply has been filed by ED to aforesaid application u/sec. 231 BNSS stating that copy of documents supplied with ECIR are in the same format which is available with the ED. Copy of the pen-drive in compliance of application u/sec. 231 BNSS containing the copy of documents are supplied in the court today.

5. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 4 submits that the application u/sec. 94 BNSS moved on behalf of accused no. 4 is for the reason that the investigating agency/ ED has not supplied the documents which are forming part of their investigation only with the intention to let the accused no. 4 bring on record the final report of the Financial Auditor M/s. Currie & Brown. Further, the retraction statement given by accused no. 4 containing several documents have also been not filed by ED which shows that no cognizance can be taken against accused no. 4.

6. Ld. Spl. PP for ED submits that the documents at the stage of cognizance which is the ECIR has already been provided to the accused as required under law/ requirement u/sec. 223 BNSS and the documents in the nature of unrelied documents shall be provided at appropriate stage in terms of the judgment of Sarla Gupta & Anr Vs. Directorate of ED. Crl.

Appeal No. 1622/2022.

7. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 4 submits that he be permitted to at least refer to the Currie & Brown Report which is furnished by Financial Auditor and forms part of the order HRERA and also has been relied upon in the predicate offence by EOW and finds mention in the list of the documents of the charge-sheet filed before Ld.

Trial Court in the predicate offence.

8. I have Ld. Spl. PP for ED and Ld. Counsel for accused no. 4 in this regard and in my considered view, at the stage of cognizance, the ECIR filed along-with the documents relied upon by the prosecution, are required to be taken into consideration and since ED has already stated today that the aforesaid report of M/s. Currie & Brown, was not seized at the time of investigation, it cannot be supplied to Ld. Counsel for accused no. 4 at this stage.

9. However, considering that the report of M/s. Currie & Brown (Financial Auditor) has already been part of charge-sheet filed in the predicate offence, I find no impediment in allowing accused no. 4 to refer to the same during the course of arguments. rest of the documents which are sought to be given by ED which are mentioned in the aforesaid application do not forms part of ECIR and cannot be supplied at this stage.

10. Copy of the report of M/s. Currie & Brown may be also supplied by accused no. 4 during the course of arguments to the Court.

11. Aforesaid applications u/sec. 94 BNSS and u/sec. 231 BNSS qua accused no. 4 stands disposed of, accordingly.

12. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 5, 10 and 13 submits that they do not wish to argue on the point of cognizance.

13. However, Ld. Spl. PP for ED submits