Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Date: 31-07-2024
Facts: This case arose from an FIR dated July 5, 2017, alleging offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On July 26, 2017, the Directorate of Enforcement recorded an ECIR, initiating investigations under Section 5 of the PMLA against Lara Projects LLP and its directors/shareholders. Following attachment proceedings, a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The petitioners filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court challenging a common order dated March 30, 2019, from the Special Judge (PC Act) that dismissed their applications for the supply of deficient or illegible documents. They contended that provisions of the CrPC govern PMLA proceedings, requiring strict adherence to Section 208 of the CrPC. The petitioners noted that the prosecution's document submission, spanning eight volumes and 3,535 pages, was deficient and incomplete upon preliminary review.
Issue: Is the accused entitled to documents that the prosecution is not relying upon in trial?
Observation: The Delhi High Court ruled that Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to PMLA proceedings. The Court clarified that a trial commences with the framing of charges, and the pre-charge stage does not constitute a trial. It relied on conclusions from the Dharambir case, which stated that the prosecution is only required to provide documents it intends to rely upon during the trial. Thus, the petitioners were not entitled to the documents not being relied upon by the prosecution.
