Reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – protection of life and personal liberty – the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an accused is entitled to receive copies of all documents and statements collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during investigation, including those not relied upon by the investigating agency.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that once cognisance is taken on the prosecution complaint, the Special Judge (PMLA) must ensure that, along with the process, a copy of the complaint and all documents relied upon are supplied to the accused.

Advertisement

Importantly, the bench also directed that even the list of statements, documents, material objects, and exhibits not relied upon by the investigating officer must be furnished to the accused.

“It is held that a copy of the list of statements, documents, materials, objects, exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the accused,” the court said in its judgment.

The court said that the objective is to ensure that the accused are aware of the documents in the investigating officer’s custody, so that they can apply for their production under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) at an appropriate stage.

Stating that the right to a fair trial is embedded under Article 21, the bench said that complete disclosure of material collected during the investigation is an essential safeguard to ensure the accused’s right to defend.

It observed that a fair trial includes the right to lead defence evidence by examining witnesses and producing documents, and that this right extends to compelling the prosecution or a third party to produce documents under Section 233 of the CrPC.

However, the bench clarified that trial courts can refuse such requests only on limited grounds specified in Section 233(3) of the CrPC — specifically, if the request is frivolous, vexatious, or meant to delay proceedings.

Further, the court said that the accused can also invoke Section 311 of the CrPC to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination based on such additional documents, even after both sides have closed their evidence.

The judgment came on an appeal against a Delhi High Court order passed in 2019 concerning an alleged money laundering case involving Lara Projects LLP and its directors and shareholders.

In that case, some accused persons contended that the documents supplied by the ED were illegible or deficient, and sought access to legible copies and complete materials.

The bench noted that merely supplying a copy of the prosecution complaint was not sufficient and the accused must be fully informed of all materials gathered, whether relied upon or not, to enable the preparation of an effective defence.

The ruling is seen as strengthening procedural safeguards, especially in trials under special laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).