PMLA disclosure rights: accused may access seized records, complaint material, defence documents and bail-stage evidence subject to limits.

Fair procedure under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires disclosure of seized records, instruments and title deeds to the accused, including true copies or soft copies where necessary, because retention does not vest them in the Enforcement Directorate. After cognizance on a complaint, the accused is entitled to the complaint and all accompanying material, including supplementary complaints and supporting documents. At framing of charge, unrelied upon documents are ordinarily not to be copied, though they must be identified. At the defence stage, production of documents may be sought under the CrPC, subject to the limited refusals in Section 233(3). In bail proceedings under Section 45(1)(ii), unrelied upon documents may also be sought, subject to protecting any ongoing investigation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to true copies of records, instruments, or documents of title seized under the search and seizure powers of the Act; (ii) whether an accused is entitled to copies of the complaint and all documents produced along with the complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when cognizance is taken; (iii) whether, at the stage of framing of charge, the accused can demand copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution; (iv) whether, at the stage of entering upon defence, the accused can seek production of documents in the custody of the prosecution or a third party; and (v) whether, in bail proceedings governed by Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the accused can seek production of documents not relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate.

Issue (i): Whether an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to true copies of records, instruments, or documents of title seized under the search and seizure powers of the Act;

Analysis: Sections 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the Act regulate search, seizure, retention and return of property and records. The scheme distinguishes between seized property and seized records. The person from whom records are seized is entitled to obtain copies of such records under Section 21(2). Deeds and instruments evidencing title, when seized as property, may also be copied because retention does not amount to forfeiture and the seized material does not vest in the Enforcement Directorate. Denial of copies would be inconsistent with fair procedure and arbitrary in effect. Where the seized documents are bulky, soft copies may be furnished.

Conclusion: The accused is entitled to true copies of seized records, documents, and instruments of title, as well as the seizure memo for other seized property.

Issue (ii): Whether an accused is entitled to copies of the complaint and all documents produced along with the complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when cognizance is taken;

Analysis: Once cognizance is taken on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b), the complaint and the documents produced with it form the basis of cognizance and cannot be separated from the complaint. Section 204(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires the summons or warrant to be accompanied by a copy of the complaint. Applying the principles underlying Sections 207 and 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused must also receive statements recorded before cognizance and the documents produced with the complaint, including supplementary complaints and accompanying documents.

Conclusion: The accused is entitled to copies of the complaint and all documents produced with it, including supplementary complaints and accompanying material.

Issue (iii): Whether, at the stage of framing of charge, the accused can demand copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution;

Analysis: At the stage of framing charge, the court can consider only the material forming part of the complaint or chargesheet. The accused is entitled to be furnished with a list of documents, exhibits and materials not relied upon by the prosecution, but ordinarily not to copies of those documents at that stage. The purpose of disclosure at that stage is to preserve fairness and enable a later request for production at the appropriate stage, not to expand the material considered for charge.

Conclusion: The accused is not ordinarily entitled to copies of unrelied upon documents at the stage of framing of charge.

Issue (iv): Whether, at the stage of entering upon defence, the accused can seek production of documents in the custody of the prosecution or a third party;

Analysis: Section 233(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers a stronger right than Section 91, because the court shall issue process for production unless the request is vexatious, delayed, or intended to defeat justice. This right applies to trials under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and assumes greater importance because Section 24 places a negative burden on the accused. A liberal construction is therefore required to protect the right to rebut the statutory presumption and secure a fair trial.

Conclusion: The accused can seek production of documents at the stage of entering upon defence, subject only to the limited grounds of refusal under Section 233(3).

Issue (v): Whether, in bail proceedings governed by Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the accused can seek production of documents not relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate;

Analysis: Section 45(1)(ii) imposes a stringent condition for bail and requires the accused to show reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty. To enable meaningful opposition to continued custody, the accused may invoke Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to seek documents not relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate. If investigation or further investigation is pending, the prosecution may object on the ground of prejudice to the investigation, and the court may decline production only after examining the documents and recording satisfaction that disclosure would prejudice the investigation.

Conclusion: The accused may seek production of unrelied upon documents in bail proceedings under Section 45(1)(ii), subject to protection of an ongoing investigation.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the accused are granted disclosure and production rights in the manner recognised by the Court for seized material, complaint material, defence evidence, and bail proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, fairness under Article 21 requires disclosure of seized records and complaint material to the accused, while unrelied upon documents may be sought at the defence stage and, in appropriate bail proceedings, at the stage of considering release under the stringent conditions of Section 45(1)(ii).

---