Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement
Background
Two sets of PMLA accused (linked appeals) had asked the trial courts to direct the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to supply them documents the ED had collected during investigation but not relied upon in its prosecution complaint, along with illegible or suppressed material. In both cases the Special Courts refused, holding the ED need only supply documents it actually relies on, and the High Courts of Delhi and of Punjab & Haryana upheld that refusal. The accused approached the Supreme Court arguing that a fair trial under Article 21 and Section 207 of the CrPC required broader access to the material collected against them.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, holding that an accused's right to a fair trial can require access to unrelied-upon documents at specific later stages of a PMLA trial, for instance, under Section 91 CrPC when needed to rebut the reverse burden of proof at a bail hearing, or under Section 233(3) CrPC when producing defence evidence, even though the prosecution is not obliged to hand over everything at the initial supply-of-documents stage. The Court laid down a detailed, stage-wise framework covering when and how such documents (including those in ED custody or third-party custody) can be sought, while allowing the ED to object on the ground that disclosure would prejudice an ongoing investigation. It directed the ED to supply the appellants soft or legible copies of the outstanding documents within one month.
Lesson Learnt
An accused facing trial, including under stringent laws like the PMLA, is not limited to only the documents the prosecution chooses to rely on; there are defined stages (bail hearings, defence evidence) at which an accused can lawfully seek production of additional material collected during investigation to defend themselves effectively.