2022 (3) TMI 1537 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - scheduled offences - Receiving huge amounts as bribe from various persons for appointing them as Conductors and Drivers in the Transport Corporations - HELD THAT - The Enforcement Directorate should have first filed an application under Rule 237 of the CRP 2019 for inspection of the records in the Special Court and since they are officers of the Enforcement they are entitled to inspect the records under Rule 237(1) ibid. Under Rule 238 ibid. they can take extracts which means they can take notes of the contents of the documents which they require. The expression take only written extracts used in Rule 238 ibid. means the Enforcement Officer cannot capture those records in his mobile phone camera or any other electronic gadget but is only entitled to take written notes for his use and thereafter may make a third party copy application specifying the document which he needs and the purpose for which the same is required as laid down in Rule 210 ibid. Those portions of the impugned orders which state certified copies of unmarked documents cannot be granted and the said prayer is accordingly negatived are set aside. It is open to the Enforcement Directorate to follow the procedure of conducting inspection under Rule 237 ibid. and thereafter file a fresh third party copy application before the Special Court if so advised. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of rules regarding granting certified copies of documents in criminal cases.
- Discretion of the court in granting certified copies to third parties.
- Enforcement Directorate's access to investigation materials under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved the interpretation of rules concerning the provision of certified copies of documents in criminal cases, the discretion of the court in granting such copies to third parties, and the Enforcement Directorate's access to investigation materials under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. The case revolved around three criminal original petitions related to allegations against a former Transport Minister for receiving bribes for appointments in Transport Corporations.

The court discussed the relevance of Rule 231(3) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, which prohibits the granting of certified copies of photocopies of unmarked documents. It was clarified that this rule does not prevent the issuance of certified copies of originals, even if unmarked. The court also examined Rule 210, emphasizing that it outlines the procedure for making third party copy applications but does not automatically entitle a third party to certified copies, as the court has the discretion to grant or refuse based on various factors.

The Enforcement Directorate's access to investigation materials under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act was a crucial aspect of the case. The Directorate sought certified copies of certain documents from the Special Court but faced refusal for unmarked documents. The court acknowledged the Directorate's need for access to these materials and set aside the portion of the orders denying the certified copies of unmarked documents. It directed the Directorate to follow the procedure of conducting inspection under Rule 237 of the CRP 2019 and file a fresh third party copy application if necessary.

Overall, the judgment clarified the rules governing the provision of certified copies in criminal cases, highlighted the court's discretion in granting such copies to third parties, and addressed the Enforcement Directorate's rights to access investigation materials under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. The decision provided guidance on the procedural steps to be followed by the Directorate to obtain the required documents, ensuring a fair and transparent process in the legal proceedings.