Accused Entitled to Copies of Seized Records and Documents Produced with PMLA Complaints; Court Protects Right to Seek Unrelied Documents at Defence and Bail Stages

A three-judge Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih heard appeals by Sarla Gupta and another challenging orders of the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts refusing directions to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to supply various documents and copies seized during investigations under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act (PMLA). The appeals arose from two sets of proceedings: Criminal Appeal No.1622 of 2022, rooted in a Delhi High Court order dated 22 July 2019 refusing production of certain relied‑upon and illegible documents supplied with a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA; and Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2024, challenging a Chandigarh High Court judgment dated 18 November 2022 upholding a Special Court order denying copies of documents seized during ED searches.

The Court allowed both appeals and set aside the impugned orders, clarifying the procedural rights of accused persons in PMLA prosecutions. It held that where records, instruments or documents of title were seized under Sections 17 and 18 PMLA, “the person from whom the records are seized is entitled to get the true copies thereof,” and that once cognizance was taken on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA the Special Court must provide the accused with the complaint and the documents produced with it. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Once cognizance is taken on the basis of a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, the learned Special Judge must direct that along with the process, a copy of the complaint and the following documents be provided to the accused: (i) statements recorded by the learned Special Judge of the complainant and the witnesses, if any, before taking cognizance; (ii) the documents … produced before the Special Court, along with the complaint, and the documents produced subsequently by the ED till the date of taking cognizance; and (iii) copies of the supplementary complaints and the documents, if any, produced with supplementary complaints. … At the stage of entering upon defence, an accused can apply for the issue of process for the production of any document or thing in accordance with Section 233(3) of the CrPC.”

Background The disputes arose after the CBI registered an FIR in July 2017 and ED registered an ECIR; complaints under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA were filed and cognizance was taken by Special Courts. The appellants sought (i) copies of documents referred to or relied upon in complaints but not supplied; (ii) legible copies of documents supplied in illegible form; and (iii) copies of documents seized during ED searches but not relied upon. Special Courts rejected those applications and the High Courts declined interference. The appellants challenged those rejections before the Supreme Court.

Relying on statutory provisions in PMLA (Sections 17, 18, 20, 21) and domestically binding precedents, the Bench analysed interplay with CrPC provisions (notably Sections 204, 207, 208 and 233) and earlier decisions including Criminal Trials Guidelines (In Re) and subsequent authorities. The Court distinguished the stage for framing of charge—when reliance was limited to documents produced with the complaint—and the later stage of entering defence when Sections 233/243 and Section 91 CrPC allowed the accused to compel production of documents or witnesses unless the application was shown to be for vexation, delay or to defeat justice. The Court also directed that a list of documents not relied upon by the investigating agency must be furnished to the accused so that the accused could, at an appropriate stage, apply under Section 91 CrPC for copies. Addressing PMLA’s sui generis features, the Court observed that given the negative onus and stringent bail proviso in Section 45(1)(ii), accused persons had a heightened entitlement to seek documents at bail stage; the ED could resist production during ongoing investigation only by showing to the Court, with reasons recorded, that disclosure would prejudice the investigation.

Final result and directions issued: the Court quashed the impugned High Court orders. It directed the ED to supply soft or legible copies of all documents produced with the complaint (Criminal Appeal No.1622 of 2022) and to provide true copies of seized documents from the appellants’ premises (Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2024) within one month; it emphasised that accused could not rely on unprovided seized documents at framing of charge but could seek production at defence and, where relevant, at bail hearings subject to limited exceptions.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1622 of 2022; Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2024 (Reported as 2025 INSC 645) Case Title: Sarla Gupta & Another v. Directorate of Enforcement Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior counsel for the appellants (name not specified in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (name not specified in judgment)