2022 (11) TMI 1230 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking supply of the documents which according to the petitioners were seized during the raids by the respondent-ED - relied upon documents - unrelied upon documents. Whether the petitioners are entitled for supply of documents which have been allegedly seized by the Directorate of Enforcement or not? HELD THAT - The respondent-ED has taken up categorical stand both while replying to the applications made by the petitioners before the learned Special Judge, Gurugram and also before this Court that all the documents relied upon by the Directorate of Enforcement in the present case have already been supplied to the accused persons including the petitioners of the present two cases. Replies filed by the respondent-ED before the learned Special Judge, Gurugram have already been reproduced above. Therefore, so far as the supply of the relied upon documents is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the same that the same have already been supplied to the petitioners - Since the relied upon documents have already been supplied to the petitioners, the question for determination would now be as to whether the petitioners have any right for the supply of unrelied upon documents or not. Regarding supply of unrelied upon documents, the learned Amicus Curiae before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2021 (4) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT had pointed out with regard to the supply of documents and statements at the time of the commencement of trial and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects, the Magistrate should also ensure that list of other materials, even if they are not relied upon should be furnished to the accused. During the course of arguments Mr. Raju had submitted that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court was emphasizing on the list of statements, documents and material objects and not the supply of the documents which were unrelied upon. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court amended its Rules and Orders. Amendment was effected in Chapter-1, Part D of Volume III pertaining to Procedure in enquires and trials by Magistrate and Rule 6 was substituted on 10.12.2021 - it has been so provided by the aforesaid Rules that those documents which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer, qua them a list should be supplied to the accused person. However, there is nothing in the aforesaid Rules that the unrelied upon documents should also be supplied to the accused. As per the aforesaid Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, the petitioners may ask for a list of those documents which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer. However, the petitioners have not prayed for seeking a list of the documents which are not relied upon by the prosecution either in the present petitions or before the learned Special Judge but they have prayed for supply of all the documents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Versus Debendra Nath Padhi 2004 (11) TMI 564 - SUPREME COURT had observed that at the stage of framing of charges, roving and fishing inquiry was not permissible and in case the contention of the accused is accepted it would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal Jurisprudence. It observed that at the stage of framing of charges what is to be considered is only the material filed by the prosecution and the documents submitted therein and nothing more and therefore, what is to be seen at the stage of framing of charges is the relied upon documents and not the unrelied upon documents - In the present case the charges are yet to be framed and therefore, considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, the petitioners would not be entitled for the supply of unrelied upon documents. At the most in case the petitioners so require or demand, then they may file appropriate application for supply of a list of the unrelied upon documents before the learned Special Judge in accordance with law. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsels for the petitioners in CBI Versus INX Media Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (11) TMI 1048 - DELHI HIGH COURT is concerned, the facts of the aforesaid judgment would not be applicable to the present case because the Delhi High Court had allowed inspection of the documents in view of CBI Manual which had provided for the same. So far as the another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that non-supply of all the documents would prejudice the rights of the petitioners and in so far as the right of fair trial to the petitioners is concerned, the said argument seems to be attractive but does not cut any ice. There is no doubt that every accused has a right to fair trial but in the present case the trial has not commenced as yet. The charges have not been framed in the present case and the petitioners are seeking supply of unrelied upon documents at the pre-charge stage and therefore, considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , the petitioners can at the most be permitted to file an appropriate application for supply of list of unrelied upon documents, if they so require and so desire. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to supply of documents seized by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
2. Distinction between 'relied upon' and 'unrelied upon' documents.
3. Applicability of Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Right to fair trial and its implications on document supply.
5. Relevance of judgments and rules on the supply of documents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Supply of Documents Seized by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED):
The primary issue addressed was whether the petitioners are entitled to the supply of documents seized by the ED during raids. The court noted that the ED had already supplied all the documents it relied upon in the prosecution complaint to the accused, including the petitioners. The petitioners sought the supply of both relied upon and unrelied upon documents. However, the court emphasized that the petitioners have no right to unrelied upon documents at this stage, aligning with established legal principles and the ongoing nature of the investigation.

2. Distinction Between 'Relied Upon' and 'Unrelied Upon' Documents:
The court analyzed whether the petitioners are entitled to unrelied upon documents. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, which clarified that at the stage of framing charges, only the material filed by the prosecution should be considered, not unrelied upon documents. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders also support this, providing that the accused should be supplied with a list of unrelied upon documents, not the documents themselves.

3. Applicability of Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioners invoked Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that all documents seized during the investigation should be furnished to the accused. The court clarified that Section 208 applies to cases committed to the Court of Sessions by a Magistrate, not directly applicable to cases under the PMLA filed before a Special Judge. Thus, the petitioners' reliance on Section 208 was misplaced.

4. Right to Fair Trial and Its Implications on Document Supply:
The petitioners argued that denying access to all documents would prejudice their right to a fair trial. While acknowledging the importance of a fair trial, the court highlighted that the trial had not yet commenced, and the charges were yet to be framed. Therefore, the petitioners' request for unrelied upon documents at this pre-charge stage was premature. The court suggested that the petitioners could file an application for a list of unrelied upon documents if necessary.

5. Relevance of Judgments and Rules on the Supply of Documents:
The court examined various judgments and rules, including the Supreme Court's guidelines in Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, which emphasized supplying a list of unrelied upon documents to the accused. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders were also amended to align with these guidelines. The court distinguished the present case from the Delhi High Court's judgment in CBI vs. INX Media Pvt. Ltd., noting that the latter allowed inspection based on the CBI Manual, which was not applicable under the PMLA or Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to apply for a list of unrelied upon documents before the learned Special Judge, Gurugram. The Special Judge was directed to consider any such application in light of the relevant judgments, rules, and laws.