Bench's Inquiry and Legal Context A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih raised this issue during the hearing of the appeal. Justice Oka emphasized the importance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates the supply of police reports and other documents to the accused. The bench questioned whether the accused could demand access to documents beneficial to their defense, even if the prosecution does not plan to use them.
Defense Argument The defense counsel argued that denying access to these documents infringes upon the accused's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The defense cited previous Supreme Court rulings, including Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, where it was held that a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA would be governed by Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC. The counsel contended that the Delhi High Court's judgment was inconsistent with these precedents and the accused's constitutional rights.
Prosecution's Stand Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that, under the CrPC, the accused is only entitled to a list of documents until the trial commences. He suggested that the accused could request the court for the documents under Sections 451 or 457 of the CrPC, which deal with the custody and disposal of property pending trial. The prosecution maintained that providing a list of documents, rather than the documents themselves, is sufficient at the pre-trial stage.
Case Background The case originates from an FIR registered in July 2017, alleging conspiracy and corruption involving Lara Projects LLP and its directors/shareholders. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated investigations under the PMLA, resulting in attachment proceedings and a criminal complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the Special Judge's decision, which denied their request for complete and legible documents, in the Delhi High Court.
High Court's Ruling The Delhi High Court ruled that Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC do not apply directly to PMLA proceedings. The court clarified that the pre-charge stage does not equate to a trial, and the prosecution is only obligated to furnish documents it intends to rely upon. This ruling was based on precedents, including Dharambir v. CBI, which limited the scope of document disclosure at the pre-charge stage.
Supreme Court's Consideration The Supreme Court has allowed the parties to file brief submissions and scheduled the matter for hearing on August 22, 2024. The decision will have significant implications for the rights of accused individuals in PMLA cases and the application of CrPC provisions to these proceedings.
Conclusion The Supreme Court's examination of this issue is pivotal in balancing the rights of the accused with the procedural obligations of the prosecution in PMLA cases. The upcoming decision will clarify whether the accused can access potentially exculpatory documents, enhancing the fairness and transparency of the legal process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.