The Supreme Court ruled that accused persons in PMLA cases have the right to receive copies of all documents seized during investigation, including those not relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate. The judgment clarified that this right flows from Sections 207/208 CrPC principles and is essential for ensuring fair trial rights under Article 21. The Court held that while documents can be restricted during ongoing investigations, accused are entitled to full disclosure at later stages, especially when facing the reverse burden of proof under Sections 24 and 45(1)(ii) of PMLA. The decision balances investigative needs with constitutional protections.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved two criminal appeals concerning the rights of accused persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In Criminal Appeal No. 1622/2022, the appellants challenged the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the Special Court’s refusal to provide copies of certain documents related to the ED’s complaint, including illegible copies and documents mentioned but not supplied. The ED had registered an ECIR based on a CBI FIR alleging offenses under IPC and PC Act, followed by a PMLA complaint where cognizance was taken in 2018. The appellants sought additional documents which were denied. In Criminal Appeal No. 730/2024, the appellants challenged the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order rejecting their plea for copies of documents seized during ED raids in 2019. The ED had conducted searches under PMLA provisions and seized various records, but refused to provide copies, claiming investigation was ongoing.
Both cases raised fundamental questions about accused rights to documents under PMLA proceedings. The Supreme Court consolidated these appeals to examine whether accused persons are entitled to (a) copies of all seized documents, (b) legible copies of relied-upon documents, and (c) documents collected but not relied upon by the ED, particularly concerning the stringent bail conditions and reverse burden of proof under PMLA.
Procedural History:
The procedural history begins with the registration of an ECIR by the ED based on a CBI FIR in 2017, followed by a PMLA complaint filed before the Special Court in August 2018. When the appellants sought additional documents including illegible copies and materials not supplied by the ED, the Special Court rejected their application in March 2019, holding the prosecution only needed to supply relied-upon documents. This order was challenged before the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition in July 2019. Simultaneously, in a connected matter, the ED conducted searches in 2019 and seized documents, but refused to provide copies during ongoing investigations.
The Special Court rejected the accused’s application for these documents in March 2022, which was upheld by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in November 2022. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court through special leave petitions, which were converted to Criminal Appeal Nos. 1622/2022 and 730/2024. After hearing extensive arguments about accused rights under PMLA proceedings, particularly concerning document disclosure obligations, the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment on May 7, 2025, setting aside the High Court orders and establishing comprehensive guidelines for document access in PMLA cases.
Read Also: Supreme Court Clarifies HUF Property Partition Rights: Rejects Daughter’s Claim Due to Prior Settlements
Court Observation:
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment allowing both criminal appeals and establishing crucial safeguards for accused rights in PMLA proceedings. The Court held that accused persons are entitled to: (1) complete copies of all documents seized during ED raids, including property records and instruments of title; (2) legible copies of all documents relied upon in the complaint; and (3) a list of documents collected but not relied upon by the prosecution. The Bench mandated that Special Courts must ensure these documents are supplied when taking cognizance of PMLA complaints. Significantly, the judgment recognized the accused’s right to seek production of unrelied documents during bail hearings (under Section 91 CrPC) and at the defense evidence stage (under Section 233(3) CrPC), subject only to genuine investigative prejudice during ongoing probes.
The Court set aside the impugned High Court orders and directed the ED to provide all outstanding documents within one month, permitting soft copies for voluminous materials. Justices Oka, Amanullah and Masih emphasized that these protections are essential to counterbalance PMLA’s stringent provisions and ensure constitutional fairness in money laundering trials. The decision establishes a robust framework for document disclosure while maintaining investigative efficacy under the PMLA regime.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sarla Gupta & Anr. vs. Directorate of Enforcement Citation: 2025 INSC 645 Appeal Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1622 of 2022 Date of Judgment: 7th May, 2025 Bench Composition: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here