9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tements, 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. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Hardik Sharma, Mr. Talib Khan, Mr. Yugant Sharma and Mr. Parth Parashar, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms. Vidhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. Ors by Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C. 1338/2021, Decided on 10th November, 2021, it was held that respondent can visit the malkhana of CBI and can inspect the documents which are unrelied by the CBI, but in present case the investigation is carried out by Directorate of Enforcement which does not have any malkhana and now the issue herein is that whether only list is to be given or the actual supply of those relied and unrelied documents are to be provided. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the para 11 of 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 to contend that the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at the stage of argument on charge all the documents are to be provided to the accused. These are as follows:- i. Shashi Bala V. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Ors. by Delhi High Court in Crl. M.c. 1752/2016, Decided on 08.07.2016. ii. Mr. Arvind Kejriwal Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi by Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C. 1867/2020 decided on 21.10.2020. iii. Neelesh Jain vs State Of Rajasthan, 2006 CriLJ 2151 by Rajasthan High Court, decided on 20 December, 2005. iv. Shakuntala vs The State Of Delhi, 139 (2007) DLT 178, by Delhi High Court decided on 26 February, 2007. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned CGSC that earlier as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. no list or documents were being provided for the documents which are seized by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering Act, 2002 mentioning all the details of the seized documents and stating that these documents are required for the purpose of investigation. And in this stage the person from whom these documents are being seized is being provided with the list as well as the copies of those documents as per the section 21 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which reads as (2) The person, from whom records seized or frozen, shall be entitled to obtain copies of records. . It is further submitted that now there has to be a stage i.e. stage of trail and application is to be filed to obtain those documents for the purpose of defence. 7. Learned CGSC has placed reliance on the following judgments to contend that there is an appropriate sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
