In a significant judgment concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court has ruled that an accused is entitled to access the list of documents and statements collected during the investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), even if the agency later chooses not to rely on them while filing the prosecution complaint.

A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih emphasized that providing access to these “unrelied upon” materials is essential to uphold the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment was delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 1622/2022, which challenged a Delhi High Court ruling that denied such access at the pre-trial stage.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

• Right to Know Unrelied Upon Materials:
  The Court held that a list of all statements, documents, material objects, and exhibits not relied upon by the prosecution must be furnished to the accused. This enables the accused to seek production of such materials at the defence stage by invoking Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS).

• Defence Rights under CrPC:
  At the stage of entering defence (under Section 233 CrPC / Section 256(b) BNSS), the accused can seek production of documents in the custody of the prosecution or third parties. Such applications should generally be allowed unless exceptional circumstances justify rejection.

• Cross-Examination Based on New Documents:
  If new documents are produced at the defence stage, the accused has the right to recall prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination under Section 311 CrPC. This, the Court said, is crucial to ensuring an effective defence.

• Reverse Burden in PMLA:
  Noting that Section 24 of the PMLA imposes a reverse burden on the accused, the Court underscored that access to all potentially exculpatory material is essential for the accused to discharge this burden. Hence, Section 233(3) CrPC must be "liberally construed" in favour of the accused.

• Application During Bail Stage:
  Even during bail proceedings under Section 45 of the PMLA, an accused may seek production of unrelied upon documents. However, if an investigation is ongoing, the ED can object on the ground that disclosure may prejudice the probe. It is then up to the Court to review the documents and decide.

Directions to Special Courts:

Once cognizance is taken on the prosecution complaint, the Special Court must direct the furnishing of the following to the accused:

1. Statements recorded before cognizance by the complainant and any witnesses.

2. All documents submitted with the complaint, including Section 50 PMLA statements and supplementary materials submitted up to the date of cognizance.

3. Copies of supplementary complaints and associated documents.

4. A list of unrelied upon documents.

Background of the Case:

The appeal arose from a Delhi High Court judgment that had held Sections 207 and 208 CrPC (requiring the supply of copies of police reports and other documents) do not apply mutatis mutandis to PMLA cases. The High Court had ruled that only documents relied upon by the prosecution needed to be shared before trial, which begins with framing of charges.

Challenging this view, the appellants—accused in a money laundering case—argued that denying access to all investigative material at the pre-trial stage violated their constitutional right to defend themselves and amounted to an arbitrary procedure.

Senior Advocate R Basant and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the appellants, stressed that the defence cannot be effective without access to all relevant documents. They cited Manoj Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court directed the prosecution to share a list of unrelied documents.

The Enforcement Directorate, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, opposed blanket disclosure and contended that the accused must make a specific case for access. However, the Bench rejected the notion that procedural barriers could override the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court also reaffirmed its previous decision in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which applied Sections 200–205 CrPC to PMLA complaints filed under Section 44(1)(b).

The verdict strengthens due process rights under the PMLA, particularly in light of its stringent provisions and the reverse burden clause.