In a significant ruling concerning the rights of accused persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court has held that the accused is entitled to receive a copy of all documents and statements collected during the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), including those not relied upon in the prosecution complaint.
The verdict was delivered by a three-judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih in an appeal challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had earlier ruled that there is no obligation upon the prosecution to furnish unrelied documents to the accused prior to the commencement of trial.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
Justice Abhay S. Oka, reading out the judgment, stated:
“It is held that a copy of the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the accused. The object is to ensure that the accused has knowledge of the documents, objects etc., in the custody of the investigating officer, which are not relied upon by them, so that at the appropriate stage, accused can apply by invoking Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) for providing copies.”
The Court further noted that the right to a fair trial, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, includes the right to defend oneself effectively, which encompasses access to relevant documents:
“The right to defend consists [in] the right to lead defence evidence by producing documents and examining witnesses. Therefore, the accused is entitled to exercise the right at the stage of entering defence by compelling the prosecution or a third party to produce a document or thing in their possession or custody.”
Application of CrPC Provisions
The Court clarified that once cognisance is taken under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, the proceeding is governed by Sections 200 to 205 CrPC. It directed that, at this stage, the Special Court must furnish the accused with:
- Statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA,
- Documents submitted with the complaint and any supplemental complaint, and
- List and access to documents not relied upon by the ED.
The Court also rejected the Delhi High Court’s conclusion that Sections 207 and 208 CrPC are not applicable to PMLA proceedings. The High Court had reasoned that trial begins only after charge framing and therefore the accused need not receive unrelied documents beforehand.
Arguments Presented
Senior Advocate R. Basant, appearing for the appellants, argued that withholding unrelied documents violated Article 21, and that Sections 207 and 208 CrPC mandated furnishing of all relevant documents. He relied on Manoj Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Court held that even unrelied material must be listed and made accessible.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan further contended that in PMLA cases, the burden on the accused to present a defence arises at various stages—including bail—making early access to documents essential.
In contrast, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, submitted that the accused could request specific documents based on relevance. He warned against blanket access, saying it may unnecessarily delay trial proceedings.
Justice Oka rebutted this contention during the hearing, observing:
“If [the accused] wants to rely on documents which are not in his custody, he has the right to get those documents. You can’t say that he can only produce documents in his pocket. Otherwise, it is arbitrary.”
