Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 93775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J
Ashok Solomon – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement – Respondent
CRM-M-16317-2022 | CRM-M-19965-2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manav Gupta, Abhinav Sood, Anmol Gupta, Keshav Pratap Singh, Sukhsandesh S. Chahel
For the Respondents: Shobit Phutela
At the pre-charge stage, an accused is entitled to receive copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution, but is not entitled to copies of unrelied-upon documents; they may only seek a list of such documents to potentially summon them later during the trial.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 44 and 45 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173, 207, 208 and 482 - Supply of documents - Accused sought supply of all documents seized during investigation, including those not relied upon by the prosecution - Scope of entitlement at pre-charge stage - Court held that while relied-upon documents must be supplied, the accused is currently entitled only to a list of unrelied-upon documents as per the High Court Rules and Supreme Court guidelines - Direct supply of unrelied-upon documents at the pre-charge stage is not legally mandated. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the dismissal of their applications by the Special Judge, Gurugram. The petitioners sought full copies of all documents seized by the Enforcement Directorate during raids. The prosecution contended that all relied-upon documents had been supplied, and provided documents not relied upon were part of an ongoing investigation, the disclosure of which would prejudice the process.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the proceedings were at a pre-charge stage. Relying on established jurisprudence, it concluded that an accused cannot demand production or copies of unrelied-upon documents at this stage. However, the court allowed the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the trial court to seek a list of such documents in accordance with the High Court's modified Rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the supply of documents seized by the Enforcement Directorate that are not relied upon by the prosecution at the pre-charge stage.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charges, the court is to focus only on material filed by the prosecution. An accused has no right to demand copies of unrelied-upon documents at this stage; they are entitled to a list of such documents to enable them to seek production of specific materials during the trial if necessary, ensuring justice without compromising the investigation.
Result: Petitions dismissed with liberty to move the trial court for a list of documents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and the nature of the application for document production. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.
The present two petitions which have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being taken up together for final disposal with the consent of learned counsels for the parties since the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 is a common order in both the cases.
One application was filed before the learned Special Judge exercising the powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA') by petitioner Ashok Solomon for supply of the copies of documents seized vide seizure memo dated 22.08.2019 and another application was filed by petitioner Parkash Gurbaxani also seeking supply of documents and list thereof, seized by the Directorate of Enforcement from the office/premises of the petitioner during conduct of raids. The learned Special Judge, Gurugram has dismissed both the applications vide impugned order dated 22.03.2022 and the aforesaid order has now been assailed by filing two separate petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The facts are being taken from CRM-M-16317-2022, titled 'Ashok Solomon Versus Directorate of Enforcement'.
The Directorate of Enforcement conducted raids on different premises of the accused and seized various documents and seizure memo was prepared on 22.08.2019. Thereafter, complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA was filed before the learned Special Judge, Gurugram. Vide Annexure P-2, petitioner Ashok Solomon filed an application before the learned Special Judge, Gurugram for supply of copies of the documents seized vide seizure memo dated 22.08.2019, with a further prayer that the framing of charges may be deferred until the copies of the documents are supplied to the petitioner. This application was filed under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prayer made by the petitioner in the aforesaid application is reproduced as under:-
“In lieu of the above submissions, the Applicant/Accused most humbly prays:
(i) that this Hon'ble Court directs the ED to supply the copies of the documents seized vide seizure memo dated 22.08.2019 and,
(ii) that the process of framing of charges may be deferred by this Hon'ble Court until a copy of the documents sought by this application are supplied to the Applicant/Accused.”
Similar prayer was made by the petitioner Parkash Gurbaxani in the other case and the prayer made by him is reproduced as under:-
“In view of the aforesaid fact, it is therefore prayed that the applicant/accused may kindly be supplied the documents & list thereof seized by the Directorate of Enforcement from the office and premises of the applicant/accused during raids in the interest of justice”.
The Directorate of Enforcement filed separate replies to the aforesaid applications.
It has specifically stated in the reply in the case of Ashok Solomon that all the documents which have been relied upon by the complainant have been supplied in the best possible condition as available with the Directorate of Enforcement and those documents mentioned in the application which are not relied upon with the impugned prosecution complaint, with that regard the investigation is continuing and ongoing and therefore, the list of remaining documents will be filed before the Court on completion of investigation. Para No.2 and 3 of the aforesaid reply in Ashok Solomon's case is reproduced as under :-
“2. That the complainant submits that all the documents which have been relied upon by the complaint have been supplied in the best possible condition as available with the Directorate of Enforcement.
3. That it is further contended that the documents mentioned in the application which are not relied upon with impugned prosecution complaint, it is submitted that the investigation is continuing and ongoing, therefore the list of remaining documents wil
