PMLA Accused Entitled To Receive List Of Materials Not Relied Upon By ED : Supreme Court

In an important judgment relating to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court held that an accused is entitled to a list of the documents and statements, which were collected by the Directorate of Enforcement during the investigation but were later given up by them while filing the prosecution complaint.

The Court held that the accused must have knowledge about the unrelied upon documents, so that he can apply at the defence stage for their production. When an accused makes such an application, the Courts should be liberal in allowing them, and should deny only in exceptional circumstances, given the reverse burden imposed by the PMLA, the Court added.

"It is held that a copy of the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the accused. The object is to ensure that the accused has knowledge of the documents, objects etc., in the custody of the investigating officer, which are not relied upon by them, so that at the appropriate stage, accused can apply by invoking Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) for providing copies of the documents which are not relied upon.".

At the stage of entering defence, the accused can apply for the issuance of process for production of documents or anything recorded under Section 233 CrPC (Section 256(b) BNSS). At this stage, the accused can also apply for the production of a document or thing that is not in the custody of the prosecution but is not produced, the Court said.

"A fair trial is a part of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to have fair trial of the accused includes the right to defend. The right to defend consists the right to lead defence evidence by producing documents and examining witnesses. Therefore, the accused is entitled to exercise the right at the stage of entering defence by compelling the prosecution or a third party to produce a document or thing in their possession or custody. The Court can decline the request of the accused for issuing process for the production of documents only on the limited ground under Section 233(3) CrPC," the Court held.

"When at the stage of defence evidence of the accused, documents are produced on the prayer of accused and the accused desires to cross-examine any of the witnesses based on the said documents, it is obviously open for the accused to apply under Section 311 CrPC to recall the prosecution witness already examined for further cross-examination. The reason is that the right to effectively cross examine the prosecution witnesses is also a part of the right to fair trial," the Court added.

The Court noted that the PMLA puts a negative burden on the accused when compared to other traditional penal statutes. Therefore, it is all the more important that Section 232(3) CrPC is "liberally construed: in favour of the accused. Because the constitutional validity of Section 24 PMLA (which imposes reverse burden on the accused) was upheld on the ground that the accused has full opportunity to show innocence.

"Therefore, if the Special Court refuses the prayer made by the accused in terms of Section 233(3) CrPC for compelling the attendance of any witness or for production of documents in possession of any party, the accused will not be in a position to discharge the onerous burden on him under Section 24 of the PMLA. Hence, the valuable right of the accused under Section 233 CrPC needs to be protected."

Production of unrelied documents can be sought even at the stage of bail

"At the time of hearing of an application for bail governed by Section 45 in connection with offences under PMLA, an accused is entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC seeking production of unrelied upon documents. If investigation or further investigation is in progress, the ED is entitled to raise objections to the production of documents sought by the accused on the ground that if the documents are disclosed, it may prejudice the investigation. Only if the Court, after perusing the documents is satsified that the disclosure of the documents at this stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation, it may deny the production of such documents," the Court added.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered its judgment in an appeal concerning the entitlement of accused persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to obtain documents seized during investigation that the prosecution does not rely upon, before the commencement of trial.

Justice AS Oka, reading out the judgment, held that once cognizance has been taken on the prosecution complaint, the Special Judge must direct that along with the process, a copy of the complaint and following documents must be provide to the accused :

1. Statements recorded by the Special Judge of the complainant and witnesses, if any, before taking cognizance.

2. Documents including the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA produced before the Special Court along with the complaint and the documents produced subsequently by the ED till the date of taking cognizance.

3. Copies of the supplementary complaints and documents, in any, produced in the supplementary complaints.

Along with the above, the unrelied upon documents are also to be furnished to the accused. 

The present appeal challenged a judgment of the Delhi High Court, which held that the prosecution is not obligated to provide such documents at the pre-trial stage. The Court allowed the appellants to access the unrelied upon documents.

Background

The petitioners, accused in a money laundering case, approached the Delhi High Court against a common order passed by the Special Judge (PC Act) dismissing their applications seeking supply of deficient or illegible documents.

The Delhi High Court held that Sections 207 (supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents) and 208 (Supply of copies of statements and document to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session) CrPC are not applicable mutatis mutandis to PMLA proceedings. It observed that trial begins with the framing of charges, and the pre-charge stage does not constitute trial. The High Court stated that the prosecution must only furnish documents it proposes to rely upon. This decision was challenged in the present appeal.

The Supreme Court questioned whether denying access to documents helpful to the accused merely on procedural grounds would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Oka remarked, “During bail proceedings there is no prohibition on court considering plausible defence of the accused... If he wants to rely on documents which are not in his custody, he has the right to get those documents. You can't say that he can only produce documents in his pocket. Otherwise, it is arbitrary.”

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the ED submitted that the accused is not entitled to a general inspection of un-relied upon documents but can request specific documents by making out a prima facie case for relevance. He stated that the trial court should examine the relevance and furnish the document if necessary and added that giving blanket access could delay the trial. He also said the accused has a list of the documents and can ask the court to inspect or produce any specific document.

Justice Oka highlighted the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that once a complaint is filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, it is governed by Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC.

The appellants-accused argued that the impugned High Court judgment disagreed with this view and highlighted the importance of Section 207 CrPC in safeguarding the accused's rights. It was also argued that denying access to potentially exculpatory documents violates Article 21.

Senior Advocate R Basant for the appellants submitted that Sections 207 and 208 CrPC require furnishing of all documents, relied on or not, before the trial begins. He argued that the prosecution's concern about a roving inquiry was misplaced, as courts can assess the relevance of the requested documents and reject irrelevant requests.

The appellants relied on Manoj Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that prosecution must provide a list of all statements, documents, material objects and exhibits not relied upon.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan stressed that in PMLA cases, the accused bears the burden to present evidence at every stage, including bail, and hence should get access to documents early.

On September 4, 2025, the Court reserved its judgment.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 1622/2022

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541

Case Title – Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment