2025 (7) TMI 485 - HC - Money Laundering

HC Sets Aside Trial Order for Violating Fair Trial Rights in Money Laundering Case

The Uttarakhand HC allowed a revision petition in a money laundering case, setting aside a trial court order dated 13.12.2024. The HC held that the ... Money Laundering - absence of the documents relied upon by the prosecution - violation of right to a fair trial - HELD THAT:- The production of document relied upon by the prosecution is part of right to fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as only when the accused has access to the documents, he will be able to raise an effective defence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by learned Court below is bad in law on two grounds, firstly being it amounts to recalling of its own order, which is expressly prohibited under Section 403 BNSS Act and secondly, as it encroaches upon and hinders the right to fair trial available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the revisionist/accused. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist regarding retrial from charge framing stage is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Gupta and Another [2025 (5) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], and the revisionist can use the documents for his defence in defence evidence stage. The offshoot of the above discussions is that the present revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Ld. District & Session Judge, Dehradun District Courts, in Special Sessions Trial No.29 of 2024 Directorate of Enforcement v. Banmeet Singh, is hereby set aside. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Court considered the following core legal questions:(a) Whether the learned Special Court committed a legal error by recalling its own earlier order directing the supply of documents to the accused, in light of the prohibition under Section 403 of the BNSS Act against a criminal court altering its own judgment.(b) Whether the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated by non-supply of documents collected during investigation but not relied upon in the prosecution complaint, particularly at the charge framing stage.(c) The scope and applicability of the right to access documents in the context of the BNSS Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents, especially regarding the stage at which the accused can seek production of documents not relied upon by the prosecution.(d) The appropriate procedural safeguards and judicial directions necessary to ensure compliance with Section 230 of the BNSS Act and to uphold the accused's right to a fair trial.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Legality of recalling the earlier order under Section 403 BNSS ActThe legal framework centers on Section 403 of the BNSS Act, which expressly prohibits a criminal court from altering its own judgment. The learned Special Court had initially passed an order dated 09.08.2024 directing the respondent to supply legible copies of documents relied upon and other documents collected during investigation. Subsequently, the Court recalled this order by its 13.12.2024 order.The Court interpreted this act of recalling as a grave irregularity and a violation of the statutory bar under Section 403. The reasoning was that once a judgment or order is passed, the court lacks jurisdiction to alter or recall it, except as provided by law. The impugned order was thus held to be legally impermissible.The Court found no justification for the recall and emphasized that such an act undermines the procedural sanctity and finality of judicial orders. It concluded that the impugned order is bad in law on this ground alone.Issue (b): Right to fair trial and supply of documentsThe accused contended that non-supply of documents relied upon by the prosecution and other un-relied documents collected during investigation deprived him of the opportunity to raise an effective defence, violating the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.The Court acknowledged that the right to a fair trial includes the right to defend oneself effectively, which necessarily entails access to relevant documents. Without such access, the accused cannot make meaningful submissions at critical stages such as framing of charge.However, the Court also balanced this right with the procedural framework established by the BNSS Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents. It recognized that at the charge framing stage, reliance can only be placed on documents forming part of the charge sheet or complaint. Documents not relied upon are not ordinarily supplied at this stage.The Court held that while the accused has the right to a fair trial, this right is to be exercised in accordance with the procedural safeguards and stages prescribed by law. The accused's right to access un-relied documents arises primarily at the defence evidence stage, not at charge framing.Issue (c): Applicability of Supreme Court precedents and procedural stages for document productionThe Court extensively relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Gupta and Another v. Directorate of Enforcement, particularly paragraphs 55(d) and (e). The Apex Court held that at the charge framing stage, reliance can only be placed on documents produced along with the complaint, and while the accused is entitled to a list of un-relied documents, copies are not ordinarily supplied at this stage.Further, at the stage of entering upon defence, the accused may apply for production of any document or thing in possession of the prosecution under Section 233(3) of the CrPC (analogous to Section 256(3) of the BNSS Act). The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial includes the right to defend, which entails the right to lead defence evidence and compel production of documents during the defence stage.The Court found these principles authoritative and binding, concluding that the revisionist's submissions for supply of documents at the charge framing stage are not supported by law. Instead, the accused can seek production of such documents at the defence evidence stage through proper applications.Issue (d): Directions to ensure compliance with Section 230 BNSS Act and fair trial safeguardsThe revisionist sought directions to ensure mandatory compliance with Section 230 of the BNSS Act, including supply of legible copies of documents and a list of un-relied documents, and to provide opportunities to inspect such documents if refused supply, citing Supreme Court guidelines from a suo moto writ regarding inadequacies in criminal trials.The Court acknowledged the importance of these procedural safeguards to uphold the right to a fair trial. It underscored that courts in Uttarakhand must apply judicial mind to all relevant matters and address prayers for proceedings under Section 230 BNSS Act with adherence to the parameters outlined by the revisionist.However, the Court clarified that these directions must be balanced with the statutory framework and Supreme Court precedents. The accused's right to access un-relied documents and inspection thereof is to be exercised at the appropriate stage of proceedings, primarily the defence evidence stage, and subject to reasoned judicial orders.The Court thus implicitly endorsed the need for judicial oversight and reasoned decisions on applications for production of documents, ensuring that the accused's right to a fair trial is protected without disrupting the procedural scheme.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'Production of document relied upon by the prosecution is part of right to fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as only when the accused has access to the documents, he will be able to raise an effective defence.''The impugned order passed by learned Court below is bad in law on two grounds, firstly being it amounts to recalling of its own order, which is expressly prohibited under Section 403 BNSS Act and secondly, as it encroaches upon and hinders the right to fair trial available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the revisionist/accused.''At the time of hearing for framing of charge, reliance can be placed only on the documents forming part of the chargesheet... the accused is not entitled to seek copies of the said documents at the stage of framing of charge. 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 (Section 256(3) of the BNSS).'The Court's final determinations were:(i) The impugned order recalling the earlier direction for supply of documents is set aside as illegal under Section 403 BNSS Act.(ii) The accused's right to a fair trial includes access to documents relied upon by prosecution, but such access at the charge framing stage is limited to documents forming part of the charge sheet or complaint.(iii) The accused may seek production of un-relied documents at the defence evidence stage through proper judicial process, consistent with Supreme Court precedents.(iv) Courts must ensure compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 230 BNSS Act and judicially manage applications for production of documents to uphold the right to fair trial.