Supreme Court Rules PMLA Accused Entitled to Copies of Non-relied Documents: A Boost to Fair Trial Rights

In a landmark judgment that reinforces the constitutional right to a fair trial, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that accused persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) are entitled to obtain copies of documents and materials collected during the investigation—even those not relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). This significant verdict was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Sarla Gupta and Anr v. Directorate of Enforcement, decided on May 7, 2025.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The apex court held that an accused person must be provided with the list of all materials in the possession of the investigating agency, including those not relied upon by the ED. The Court clarified that the objective of this direction is to ensure that the accused is aware of all documents in the custody of the ED and can apply for access to them at an appropriate stage under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

“It is held that a copy of the list of statements, documents, materials, objects, exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the accused,” the Court declared.

Strengthening Article 21: Right to Fair Trial

The judgment underscores that the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution includes not just the right to be heard, but also the right to prepare an effective defence. This encompasses:

• The right to lead defence evidence.
• The right to summon witnesses.
• The right to seek production of documents from prosecution or third parties.

The Bench further stated that trial courts must interpret Section 233(3) of the CrPC liberally, especially in money laundering cases, where the statutory framework already places a heavy burden on the accused due to presumptions against them under the PMLA.

Legal Provisions Discussed

Here are the key provisions examined by the Supreme Court in this ruling:

• Section 91 CrPC / Section 94 BNSS: Provides for the court’s power to summon documents necessary for the case.
• Section 233(3) CrPC: Allows the court to refuse applications for summoning documents only in limited circumstances, such as delay tactics or vexatious reasons.
• Section 311 CrPC: Permits the court to recall witnesses at any stage of the trial.
• Section 207 CrPC: Relates to furnishing copies of police reports and relevant documents to the accused.
• Sections 17 and 18 PMLA: Concern search and seizure by the ED.

Key Highlights from the Judgment

1. Two Copies of Seizure Memo: If property is seized under Sections 17 or 18 of PMLA, the accused is entitled to receive two copies of the seizure memo.
2. Access to Seized Records: The accused from whom any records are seized must receive two copies of those records.
3. When Cognizance is Taken: Upon cognizance under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA, the Special Court must ensure that the accused receives:

• Copies of the complaint.
• Statements of complainant/witnesses recorded before cognizance.
• Documents presented along with the complaint (including statements under Section 50 PMLA).
• Documents perused by the ED till the date of cognizance.
• Supplementary complaints and associated documents, if any.

1. Right to Recall Witnesses: The accused can invoke Section 311 CrPC to recall prosecution witnesses and cross-examine them based on new documents—even if the trial is in an advanced stage.
2. Court’s Discretion on Disclosure: While the ED may oppose disclosure of certain documents citing prejudice to the investigation, it is up to the trial court to evaluate such claims. Disclosure can only be denied if the court, after reviewing the material, believes it would indeed prejudice ongoing investigations.

Background of the Case

The ruling came in the context of a money laundering case involving Lara Projects LLP and its directors. Some of the accused had challenged the legibility and completeness of the documents supplied by the ED. The trial court, and subsequently the Delhi High Court, ruled that only documents relied upon by the ED need to be shared. Aggrieved, the accused approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and expanded the rights of the accused to include documents not forming the basis of the prosecution’s case, thus laying down an important precedent in PMLA trials.

Why This Judgment Matters

The Supreme Court’s verdict marks a critical intervention in safeguarding due process and natural justice in money laundering prosecutions. Here’s why it is legally and constitutionally significant:

• Counters prosecutorial imbalance: The ED often withholds documents it considers irrelevant to prosecution but which may be crucial for the defence.
• Reinforces defence rights: Accused persons now have a concrete legal pathway to seek documents that can exonerate them or dilute the prosecution’s case.
• Judicial oversight: Trial courts must now evaluate the necessity and fairness of withholding documents, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Implications for PMLA Trials

This decision will likely reshape trial proceedings in PMLA cases. Defence lawyers will now be more empowered to:

• File for production of non-relied documents early in the trial.
• Recall key witnesses based on new documentary evidence.
• Challenge procedural violations in document supply.

Moreover, Special Courts handling PMLA cases will now have to balance investigative secrecy with constitutional fairness, placing greater responsibility on the judiciary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement is a milestone in criminal jurisprudence, especially in the context of financial crime and money laundering trials. It ensures that accused persons are not left in the dark, and that every tool necessary for a robust defence is made available to them.

As PMLA cases often involve complicated financial records, voluminous documents, and high-stake implications, this judgment provides a lifeline to those navigating a heavily tilted prosecution system. It is a clear reminder that the principles of fair trial and natural justice must be upheld, even in the most stringent of laws.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I