2022 (3) TMI 361 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - furnishing of un-relied documents by the prosecution such as statements or objects/documents, seized during the course of investigation - HELD THAT - The supply of documents to the accused persons is covered by the provisions under Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. Though Section 173 Cr.P.C. was not having any direct bearing on the issue of supply of documents to the accused, it says that on completion of investigation, the officer in-charge of the police station shall forward to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report and as per Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. - Section 208 Cr.P.C. is pertaining to supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The said Section is not relevant to the facts of the case at present. On perusal of Section 207 Cr.P.C., while the first proviso empowers the court to exclude from the copies to be furnished to the accused, such portion as covered by Section 173 (6) Cr.P,.C., the second proviso empowers the court to direct the accused to inspect the documents which in the opinion of the court are not practicable to furnish to the accused, because of the voluminous record thereof. In V.K. SASIKALA VERSUS STATE REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE 2012 (9) TMI 1133 - SUPREME COURT , the accused in her application before the trial Court furnished specific details of the documents which were unmarked and un-exhibited which were in the custody of the court required by her with specific reference to the seizure list prepared by the investigating agency while filing a petition to supply the copies of the said documents. But, in the present case, the petitioner without specifying any documents which he required was contending in a vague manner and seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to supply all the documents and statements collected by it during the course of investigation, though the 2nd respondent was contending that they had supplied all the documents available with them. The petition being vague without any details of the documents sought by the petitioner, which were seized by the predicate offence agency or the 2nd respondent, is rightly rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad vide the impugned order. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge which seeks interference by this Court considering it as an abuse of process of law - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the proceedings in Crl.M.P. No.3031 of 2021 in S.C. No.1 of 2019 should be quashed.
2. Compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. regarding the supply of un-relied documents to the accused.
3. Applicability of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies In Criminal Trials Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others”.
4. The relevance of the judgment in V.K. Sasikala v. State to the present case.
5. The role of the Enforcement Directorate and the predicate offence agency (CBI) in supplying documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the proceedings in Crl.M.P. No.3031 of 2021 in S.C. No.1 of 2019 should be quashed:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, arguing that the order of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases was in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioner contended that the Special Judge failed to follow the guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials. The court, however, dismissed the petition, stating that the application was filed to protract the proceedings and that all documents relied upon by the prosecution were already provided.

2. Compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C. regarding the supply of un-relied documents to the accused:
The petitioner sought the list of un-relied documents seized during the investigation, which the prosecution opposed. The court noted that Section 207 Cr.P.C. pertains to the supply of the police report and other documents to the accused. The court found that the petitioner did not specify which documents were required and that the prosecution had already provided all relied-upon documents. The court held that the petition was vague and lacked specific details, thus rightly rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge.

3. Applicability of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies In Criminal Trials Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others”:
The petitioner argued that the Special Judge failed to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which mandated that a list of other materials, such as un-relied documents, should be furnished to the accused. The court, however, found that the guidelines were not yet framed by the concerned High Court and thus considered the decision not applicable to the present case.

4. The relevance of the judgment in V.K. Sasikala v. State to the present case:
The petitioner cited V.K. Sasikala v. State, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the accused should have access to unmarked and unexhibited documents if they are in the court's custody. The court noted that in the Sasikala case, the accused had furnished specific details of the required documents. In contrast, the petitioner in the present case did not specify any documents, making the petition vague. The court found no illegality or perversity in the order of the Principal Sessions Judge.

5. The role of the Enforcement Directorate and the predicate offence agency (CBI) in supplying documents:
The Enforcement Directorate contended that it did not conduct any search on the premises of the accused and that all documents available were either provided by the accused or gathered from various sources, including the CBI. The court observed that if the petitioner intended to access documents seized by the CBI, he should approach the CBI. The court found that the Enforcement Directorate had complied with its obligations by providing all relied-upon documents.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The court held that the petition was vague and lacked specific details about the documents sought. The court upheld the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, stating that there was no abuse of process of law. All miscellaneous petitions pending were also closed.