2022 (2) TMI 1435 - HC - Money Laundering

Application under Section 208 Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner herein was disposed off by merely directing for supply of the list of unrelied documents without the supply of the actual documents - HELD THAT - Reliance can be placed on the judgment of Supreme Court titled as In re To issue certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Ors. Suo Moto Writ (Crl) nos. 1/2017 2021 (4) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that This court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208, Cr. PC, the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. In the meanwhile, let the status report/reply be filed by the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement on or before the next date of hearing - List on 7 th March, 2022. Till the next date of hearing proceedings before the trial court are stayed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the supply of relied and unrelied documents by the Directorate of Enforcement.
2. Whether the absence of unrelied documents hinders the arguments on charge before the trial court.
3. Whether the Trial Court can direct the supply of relied or unrelied documents in the absence of framed rules by the High Courts.
4. Whether the Supreme Court guidelines regarding inadequacies in Criminal Trials apply to the present case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief to quash an order for not supplying unrelied documents by the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court mandates supplying such documents, citing precedents like CBI v. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner emphasized the need for actual document supply, not just a list, as per the SC guidelines.

2. The petitioner contended that without unrelied documents, charge arguments should not proceed. Referring to various judgments, the petitioner argued that all documents must be provided at the charge argument stage, citing cases like Shashi Bala v. State Govt. and others.

3. The respondent argued that the absence of rules on document supply hinders the Trial Court's ability to direct the provision of relied or unrelied documents. They highlighted that the SC guidelines mention document supply "during the trial," not at the charge framing stage. The respondent explained the process of document seizure and provision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

4. Both parties relied on judgments to support their positions. The respondent cited cases like V.K. Sasikala v. State and Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement to argue for a specific trial stage for document provision. The petitioner relied on the SC guidelines and previous judgments emphasizing the importance of providing all documents, relied and unrelied, to the accused.

In the judgment, the Court directed the Directorate of Enforcement to prepare and supply a list of unrelied material within a specified period. The Court referred to the SC guidelines to support the decision. The matter was adjourned, and proceedings before the trial court were stayed until the next hearing date. The Court emphasized the importance of following the SC guidelines in ensuring a fair trial.