ECIR disclosure in PMLA investigation is not available as of right where disclosure may hamper the probe.

During a preliminary investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, an ECIR was treated as an internal Enforcement Directorate document and not as material disclosure-worthy as of right. The Court held that summons issued under Section 50 identified the material required, and compelled disclosure of the ECIR, FIR details, and connected documents would impede the investigation; disclosure was therefore refused. Allegations of mala fides against the investigating officer were also rejected because they were unsupported and the arrest of the petitioner's husband had been made pursuant to a court-issued warrant in separate proceedings. No direction for disclosure was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to compel disclosure of the ECIR, FIR details, and connected documents during a preliminary investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the allegation of mala fides against the investigating officer was made out.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to compel disclosure of the ECIR, FIR details, and connected documents during a preliminary investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The summons was issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and the investigation was at a preliminary stage. The ECIR was treated as an internal document of the Enforcement Directorate and not a public document available for disclosure as of right. The Court noted that the summons itself indicated the nature of the material required and that disclosure of the requested records would hamper the investigation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to disclosure of the ECIR, FIR details, or connected documents.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegation of mala fides against the investigating officer was made out.

Analysis: The allegation was found unsupported. The arrest of the petitioner's husband had been pursuant to a warrant issued by the Court, and the proceedings relating to that arrest were distinct from the present matter.

Conclusion: The allegation of mala fides was rejected.

Final Conclusion: No direction for disclosure was warranted and the petition failed on both substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: During a preliminary enforcement investigation, an ECIR is not disclosure-worthy as of right, and the Court will not compel production of internal investigative material where such disclosure may impede the investigation.

---