Guest Post: 'Complaint Cases' as Scheduled Offences under the PMLA

(This is a Guest Post by Sandeep Dash)

On 16.12.2025, a Court of the Special Judge, PMLA, in Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi, passed a detailed order refusing to take cognizance of the Prosecution Complaint (‘PC’) under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) in the National Herald case.

The investigation and PC in the case stemmed from an order by the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate taking cognizance of offences on a ‘private complaint’ by Dr. Subramanian Swamy against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and others alleging commission of offences under Sections 403, 406 & 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC, 1860. The details of the allegations in the said complaint are secondary to the present discussion.

During the pre-cognizance hearing (introduced under the BNSS), the proposed accused argued against maintainability of the PC, arguing that the ED had no jurisdiction to commence investigation under the PMLA in the absence of a First Information Report (‘FIR’) for the scheduled offence. Since the scheduled offence was based only on a complaint filed by a ‘private person’ under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code 1973, it failed to meet the threshold requirement of an ‘FIR’ to initiate investigation and prosecution. On the contrary, the ED argued that PC was maintainable, as the scheduled offence could arise under three situations – either from a FIR, or a statutory complaint by a public servant or a private complaint.

The Court’s order hinges on the determination of a question of law that it frames early in the order – whether the registration of a FIR for the scheduled offence is a threshold requirement for investigation and consequent prosecution under the PMLA? Answering in the affirmative, the court reasoned that the ‘investigative potential of a FIR’ was much more than a ‘complaint’. In the facts of the case, I agree with the decision of the court. However, by framing the issue only around the necessity of an FIR, the court created an impression that an FIR is the only condition under which investigation and prosecution under the PMLA can be initiated.

I argue that a more general line of enquiry, with the question formulated as – ‘what is a threshold requirement for investigation and consequent prosecution under the PMLA?’ yields more appropriate answers to the when a scheduled offence is said to have been committed for triggering a PMLA investigation. In this, I argue firstly, that while it is correct that institutional investigation is a sine qua non for triggering PMLA investigation, the same can be done through ‘complaint cases’ and not necessarily only through FIRs; and secondly, that the law laid down in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary indicates additional safeguards in such non-FIR scheduled offences.

The law on money laundering, as it is now understood in India, is hinged upon two key concepts – the ‘scheduled offence’ and ‘proceeds of crime’. Money laundering is variously described to be a ‘piggy-backing’ offence; others have called it a ‘parasitic’ and ‘dependent’ offence. What this means is that an offence of money laundering can come into the picture if and only if another offence has already taken place. This latter offence is called a ‘Scheduled Offence’, and ought to be one or more from among the various offences listed in the Schedule to the PMLA.

For instance, for laundering murder ransom money, the commission of murder is a prerequisite. The offence of ‘murder’ then becomes the ‘Scheduled Offence’ and the ransom ‘derived and obtained’ by committing this ‘Scheduled Offence’ becomes ‘Proceeds of Crime’. As soon as any dealing is done with these ‘Proceeds of Crime’ (handling, concealing, transferring, transforming, etc.), an offence under the PMLA can be said to be made out. What that means is that you may not have murdered anybody, and hence, will not be liable for the offence of murder u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (S. 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), but still be liable for helping move the ransom money under Section 3 of the PMLA.

For the purpose of the PMLA, when is a scheduled offence said to have been committed? Can it be said to have been committed at the moment of its actual physical commission, as in when the murderer’s axe lands on the neck of the victim, and he dies? Or can it be said to have been committed when the law is set in motion against such a murderer, as in his arrest or the making of a complaint about the murder by an eyewitness, or registration of an FIR? Or, further still, can it be said to have been committed when the issue is investigated by the police, and a formal charge is filed before the court?

Answering this question is key to understanding and answering the question facing us – at which stage can the ED jump in and initiate proceedings under the PMLA? Can it initiate PMLA proceedings, when –

1. Though a ‘Scheduled Offence’ has been committed, it has neither been reported nor investigated.
2. Though not investigated, it has been reported.
3. It has been investigated, and the perpetrator has been formally accused.

The bare statute of PMLA is not very helpful in answering this question. However, some help came in the form of Paragraph 31 in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary: “The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money-laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression “derived or obtained” is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money-laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence.”

What we see in these paragraphs is some narrowing down of the situations when the ED can exercise the full range of its powers. Two situations emerge:

• A scheduled offence has been committed, and the said offence is registered with the jurisdictional police, i.e., an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.OR
• A scheduled offence has been committed, and it is pending inquiry/trial by way of a Complaint (There is a 3rd, very important situation where the ED may jump in to a limited extent, i.e., through disclosure u/s 66(2) of PMLA, which is beyond the scope of this discussion).

Situation (i) is straightforward, and the registration of a FIR is enough for the ED to get going. This is not disputed by anybody. Situation (ii) is the tricky bit, and it is essential to understand what the words ‘Complaint’ and ‘pending inquiry’ mean here. First, what is a ‘Complaint’? Under the criminal procedure in India, the criminal law can generally be set in motion either through the police/other Law Enforcement agencies competent to file Final Reports u/s 173 Cr.P.C. or by way of complaints, made directly to the Magistrate u/s 200. We are not concerned about the police here, but rather with the route of ‘complaint’.

These complaints can be made by two kinds of persons: firstly, by private persons and secondly, by certain authorities. In case of private persons, for instance, anyone may initiate criminal proceedings by filing a ‘private complaint’ before the Magistrate, who can then either order the registration of an FIR and investigation by the police, or may take cognizance and proceed for a trial based on the material in the complaint itself. This latter route is the way that Dr. Subramaniam Swamy’s complaint came to be.

Would such a complaint, disclosing offences mentioned in the schedule to the PMLA, confer jurisdiction to the ED? Would that not mean that a complaint filed by anybody (which includes a ‘nobody’) can become the basis for subsequent action by the ED? Dr. Subramaniam Swamy perhaps has nothing to do with the National Herald, and in that sense, is not even a ‘victim’. Can such complaints, often political, be enough for the ED to move in? Will it not be an affront to justice if anybody and everybody is handed the power to potentially become the architect of a money laundering investigation?

These are legitimate questions; however, the court’s order does not venture into this territory of enquiry. Instead, it looks at the bare statute of PMLA and accompanying rules. The first proviso to Section 5(1) of the PMLA in the context of a provisional attachment order says that – “Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a Magistrate under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in that Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country”

Reading this (this is the only remaining place in the entire act, where this issue finds mention) suggests that it is only the complaints filed by the authorities investigating under the respective offences mentioned in the schedule that can be the basis of action by the ED. A similar provision is part of Rule 3(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and Manner of Forwarding the reasons and Material to the Adjudicating Authority, Impounding and the period of Retention) Rules, 2005.

A contextual reading of the order, where it interprets Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary, does reveal that the court was cognizant of the possibility of such non-FIR-based scheduled offences (See Para 151 of the order). However, the restrictive framing of the question prevented the court from delving deep into why it is only the kind of private ‘complaint’ case filed by Dr. Subramaniam Swamy that fails to meet the threshold for the ED to investigate, and not all complaint cases in general.

In the order, the court misattributes wide investigative powers (arrest, search, recording of statements, etc.) only to an Investigating Officer investigating under an FIR. The discussion by the court gives an impression of a blanket exclusion of complaint cases. But if that is the case, how would non-IPC offences, which are part of the schedule to the PMLA, but require no FIR for investigation, and are prosecuted through ‘complaints’ under Section 200 Cr.P.C., trigger a PMLA investigation?

An illustrative list of offences in the schedule that are investigated by ‘authorities’ other than police, and prosecuted by way of ‘complaints’, is useful:

Sr. No.	Act in the PMLA Schedule	Offences in the Schedule	Investigative Authorities	Empowering Section
1.	Environment Protection Act, 1986	Section 15 r/w 7 and Section 15 r/w 8	Several officers, including the District Collector, Secretary to the Ministry/Department of Environment, the Seed Inspector, Officers in the Central & State Pollution Control Boards, etc.	Section 19 r/w Notification No. S.O. 394(E), published in Gazette No. 185, dt.16.4.1987 & further amendments
2.	Customs Act, 1962	Section 135	Officers of the Customs Department	Section 137
3.	Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992	Section 12A r/w 24	Securities and Exchange Board of India	Section 26 r/w 2(1)(a)
4.	Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015	51	Income Tax Department	Section 55

 

Note that many of these authorities can also exercise powers of arrest, search, and seizure, recording of statements, collection of specimens, etc., under their respective special laws, despite not being ‘police’. A cumulative reading of the statute, the schedule and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary points to the fact that not all scheduled offences arising out of complaint cases are out of bounds for the ED. Complaint cases by persons authorized to investigate those offences, where there is no provision for an ‘FIR’ can be the basis for investigation by the ED.

Insofar as a ‘complaint case’ by a private person is concerned, the court was right in its order to hold that it cannot be the basis for action by the ED. Apart from the reasons discussed above, there are other logistical and ethical reasons for not allowing something like this. From the perspective of the state, collusive and weak complaints are often filed to defeat a genuine complaint, which would then defeat the PMLA case. From the perspective of the accused, as is the situation in the present case, Mr. Swamy allegedly delaying the trial in the complaint case, thereby also potentially compromising the progress of the PMLA case, is also a case in point.

The second leg of my argument is that in complaint cases, the ED cannot investigate until the court before which the complaint has been filed by the concerned authority has taken cognizance of the complaint. There are two legs to this argument. The first needs us to understand what the phrase ‘pending inquiry’ used above in Paragraph 31 in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary. I argue that the stage of inquiry in a Complaint case is always post-cognisance by a magistrate, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rameshbhai Pandurao Hedau & Pradeep S. Wodeyar. In fact, in most places, complaint cases are not formally registered/numbered till the court has taken cognizance of the case. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, in an election affidavit filed before getting elected to the Rajya Sabha, gave a glimpse into this practice. The image is attached below.

This means that the ED, in case the scheduled offence is not registered by way of a FIR/Chargesheet but rather, a ‘Complaint pending inquiry’ filed by a person authorized to investigate that offence, can exercise jurisdiction if and only if the magistrate/court has taken cognizance of such a complaint. Where no cognizance has been taken in a complaint case, the ED cannot prosecute, as it would have no locus to investigate the case.

There is also a logical answer to why cognizance is important in ‘complaint cases’. Time and again, the highest courts of the country have decisively held that there ought to be a judicial application of mind before passing an order of cognizance. The summoning of an accused in a criminal trial is a serious matter, which must be done after a thorough examination of the evidence, both oral and documentary. A summoning order can be passed only after providing cogent reasons – this position of law was most recently reiterated and summarized by the Supreme Court in JM Laboratories. 

In complaint cases, this threshold must be strictly enforced. The reason is simple – investigations by the police are technically supposed to be monitored by the area magistrate where the police station falls, and thus, at least theoretically, the investigation is judicially monitored. In complaint cases, even by authorities, no such monitoring exists, and thus, greater scrutiny is warranted.

Guest Post: A Battle Between Bail and Silence — Comparing Section 45 PMLA with US Pre-Trial Prosecutorial Discovery

(This is a guest post)

The present post analyses the constitutionality of restrictive bail conditions in the Indian anti money laundering law from the perspective of the right against self-incrimination. Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) imposes twin conditions that an accused must meet to secure bail: (i) satisfy a court that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the accused is “not guilty of the offence”, and (ii) that the accused is unlikely to commit any further offences while on bail. By way of background, the Indian Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to Section 45, PMLA in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India. Petitions seeking a review of the judgment are pending). However, neither the original judgment nor grounds taken in the review petition sufficiently discuss the interplay between Section 45, PMLA, and the right against self-incrimination.

This post employs a comparative analysis of case law pertaining to pre-trial prosecutorial discovery rules in criminal cases in the United States to explore the intersection between Section 45, PMLA, and the right against self-incrimination.

Hypothetical Scenario: The Conflict Between Self-Incrimination and Disclosure of Material During a Bail Hearing

Imagine an accused is facing charges of money laundering, with one of the key allegations being that they received the proceeds of a crime from person X at location Y on a specific date. Aware that they must provide prima facie evidence of innocence to secure bail, the accused submits an affidavit to the court asserting that their mobile phone’s GPS data places them far from location Y at the relevant time. In response to this assertion, the prosecution requests the accused’s phone password to verify the accuracy of the GPS data. Apprehensive that failure to comply with this request could result in their bail application being denied, the accused agrees to provide the password to unlock the phone voluntarily.

Upon inspection, the prosecution confirms accuracy of the GPS data, but in the process, examines other files and data on the phone, discovering additional incriminating material that they were not aware of. The prosecution subsequently submits a counter-affidavit, which includes this newly discovered material. In response, the accused argues that this material should not be taken into consideration, asserting that it was obtained through their compelled disclosure and is therefore subject to the protections afforded by the right against self-incrimination. The prosecution argues that the password was provided voluntarily without any court order, and it does not amount to compelled disclosure.

I’ll build on this example and examine the constitutionality of pre-trial disclosures made by an accused during the bail stage.

US Case Law

The Indian guarantee against compelled self-incrimination avowedly borrows from the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Historically, the values of the American accusatorial system required the state to shoulder the entire burden in a criminal prosecution without any compelled help from the accused and the accused is not required to disclose their defence until the prosecution has presented its case. However, this privilege has been eroded through legislative provisions that require the accused to disclose certain portions of their evidence before trial.

In Williams v. Florida (“Williams”), the rule under challenge required the accused to disclose a list of alibi witnesses before trial. The accused was convicted and appealed against conviction on the ground that compelling him to reveal the name of his alibi witnesses violated his right against self-incrimination. However, the challenge was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court. To reach its conclusion, the Court first recognised that the privilege against self-incrimination consists of three elements: (i) compelled disclosure (ii) related to testimonial matter (iii) incriminating nature of the communication. The Court held that two elements, i.e., testimonial communication and ‘tendency to incriminate were present in the rule requiring disclosure of alibi witnesses. However, it concluded that the relevant rule did not compel the accused to disclose alibi witnesses. It reasoned that the defence had intended to present the alibi witnesses at trial regardless, and by providing the prosecution with this information prior to trial, the defence was simply ‘accelerating the timing of the disclosure’, thereby facilitating a more efficient trial process. It was held that even during the trial, the accused would still face the same choice: (i) to remain silent, or (ii) to offer a defence that could potentially lead to self-incrimination through cross-examination.

‘Acceleration of timing’ is an established principle today based on which pre-trial discovery by prosecution has been expanded vastly over the years. It is widely believed that prosecutorial discovery enhances the state’s ability to rebut the accused’s case and effectively cross-examine their witnesses. In light of the analysis of Williams, the issue arises as to whether the prosecution is entitled to seek any and all forms of disclosure under the guise of the ‘acceleration of timing’ principle. The subsequent cases suggest a different interpretation.

There are two ways in which pre-trial discovery from an accused can assist the prosecution. It can either (i) help prosecution in investigating the grounds of defence taken by the accused and consequently, help in preparing rebuttal evidence to the defence of the accused; and (ii) provide leads to the prosecution that can help in building a case-in-chief against the accused.

Various commentators have argued that Williams was only concerned with and envisaged the preparation of rebuttal evidence using pre-trial discovery by an accused. The Court's reasoning supports this argument. Firstly, the court equated the situation of pre-trial discovery with the stage of defence evidence at a trial, where the accused must reveal the identity of their witnesses and submit them to cross-examination, which may furnish the State with leads to incriminating rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the court only intended to confine itself to rebuttal evidence while testing constitutionality of the discovery rule requiring disclosure of alibi defence. 

In this regard, it is further pertinent to recall that in Williams, the Court held that the alibi discovery rule did not amount to a compelled disclosure since the choice between (i) remaining silent and (ii) presenting a defence that might incriminate the accused through cross-examination or provide leads to the state to impeach their witness is ‘inherent in the trial process’. The natural corollary of this reasoning is that choices compelling an accused to make choices not inherent in a trial process amount to a compelled disclosure and, hence, violate the right against self-incrimination. In a case where the accused’s disclosure can be used to build the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the accused’s decision whether or not to disclose requires them to choose between defending by affirmative evidence or defending by failure of government proof. 

In his article on prosecutorial discovery, Prof. Eric Blumenson argues that such a choice is not inherent in the trial process, since at a trial, the accused leads evidence only after the government proves a prima facie case, and hence, the adversarial criminal process protects an accused from aiding the prosecution in building its case in chief. Therefore, if the prosecutorial discovery rule, as approved in Williams, is used by the prosecution to build its case in chief, the said discovery would not pass the ‘acceleration of timing’ principle in Williams and, accordingly, would violate the right against self-incrimination.

Secondly, the fact that the majority opinion’s focus was only on rebuttal evidence can be gauged from the examples it cites in the opinion. The Court gave an example to the effect that if the disclosure rule was not in place, the way alibi testimony would have played out is that the prosecutor would have asked for a continuance / adjournment after the alibi witness’s examination-in-chief and would have found rebuttal testimony to impeach the alibi witness before cross-examining them. The Court concluded that since the said sequence of events would not violate the accused’s right against self-incrimination, neither would the pre-trial discovery rule at issue in Williams. Therefore, the said example makes it evident that the scope of Williams was limited to rebuttal evidence and the judgment did not envisage use of prosecutorial discovery as a tool to build a case-in-chief.

The Scarcity of Jurisprudence on the Use of Pre-Trial Discovery from the Accused to Construct the Prosecution’s Case-in-Chief

There appears to be a dearth of case law addressing whether pre-trial discovery from the accused can be used by prosecution to build its case-in-chief. Before Williams, the California Supreme Court in Prudhomme v. Superior Ct (“Prudhomme”) delineated two important points concerning the right against self-incrimination: (i) the right against self-incrimination is compromised when the disclosure could potentially ease the prosecution’s burden of proving its case in chief and the accused’s disclosure cannot be used for the said purpose; (ii) any disclosure that could serve as a “link in a chain” of evidence establishing the accused’s guilt is prohibited under the principle of right against self-incrimination.

Another Californian case took the same view as Prudhomme. In re Misener (“Misener”), a broader interpretation than Prudhomme was taken when the majority held that Fifth Amendment privilege does not end upon the establishment of a prima facie case by the prosecution and that it barred any prosecutorial discovery that prevented the prosecution from carrying the entire burden of proving the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, whether compelled disclosure might serve to make the prosecution’s case or to unmake the accused’s.

Therefore, in Prudhomme and Misener, the California Supreme Court explicitly recognised that any pre-trial disclosure that lessens the burden of the prosecution in proving its case-in-chief is unconstitutional. However, none of these cases dealt with a scenario in which the prosecution used pre-trial disclosure to build its case-in-chief.

Both Prudhomme and Misener were subsequently overruled in Izazaga v. Superior Court. Here, the California Supreme Court sustained a broad reciprocal disclosure requirement, rejecting the Prudhomme analysis. The California Supreme Court held that under the rationale of Williams, pre-trial discovery does not constitute compelled self-incrimination. Therefore, Prudhomme and Misener were overruled based on the reasoning in Williams, which was itself confined to envisioning pre-trial discovery for the purpose of collecting rebuttal evidence, rather than for building the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

It is pertinent to note that the issue of whether the prosecution can use pre-trial discovery to build its case-in-chief was not answered and has remained unanswered. There is no denying that prosecutorial pre-trial discovery over the years has become broader. For example, trial court rulings, based on the ‘acceleration of timing of disclosure’ laid down in Williams, have accepted a requirement of advance notification of defences, of expert witnesses, and of all other witnesses. Nevertheless, it can be fairly argued that these pre-trial disclosures should serve solely to counter defence witnesses and cannot be utilised by the prosecution to establish its case-in-chief. 

An example of this principle can be found in a trial court judgment in State v. McClaren in which while allowing pre-trial discovery, the court held that “any concerns defendant has concerning the disclosure [itself] potentially being used by the prosecutor in the case-in-chief could be addressed by an in camera review by the circuit court.” Further, even in Izazaga, which overruled Prudhomme and Misener, the concurring opinion by Justice Kennard mentions that there is a limitation on the manner in which the prosecution may use the discovery, and that it would be “impermissible for the prosecution to use, as part of its case-in-chief, evidence gained through discovery of statements of potential defense witnesses.” Therefore, while courts have been liberal in allowing prosecutorial pre-trial discovery based on Williams' acceleration principle, they are cognizant of the possibility of violation of the Fifth Amendment Principle if the said discovery is used for building prosecution’s case-in-chief.

Applying U.S. Pre-Trial Discovery Principles to the Hypothetical Scenario in Bail Proceedings under Section 45, PMLA

The principles discussed in the preceding section regarding pre-trial prosecutorial discovery should be applied in bail proceedings under PMLA. The justification for this is evident: Section 45, PMLA forces the accused to reveal their defence at a pre-trial stage. Consequently, bail proceedings under PMLA mirror the function of pre-trial prosecutorial discovery, insofar as they afford the state early access to key aspects of the accused’s defence before the commencement of trial.

Accordingly, applying these principles in the Indian context, the argument remains that if the prosecution uses the information disclosed by the accused to build the ‘foundational facts’ in its counter-affidavit (or the chargesheet later), the same would violate Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. Currently, the prosecution is not restricted from doing this, and in practice, the prosecution routinely files supplementary reports / complaints based on arguments made by the accused at the bail and charge stage to plug loopholes in its case-in-chief. Accordingly, even as per a broad interpretation of discovery rules under U.S. jurisprudence, the current use of Section 45, PMLA is violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution.

In light of the discussion of jurisprudence surrounding pre-trial prosecutorial discovery in the U.S., it can be concluded that Section 45, PMLA directly impacts the right against self-incrimination. The compelled disclosure of the accused’s defence at this stage undermines the privilege against self-incrimination. The argument that such disclosure is voluntary overlooks the coercive nature of the choice between liberty and silence. Courts must adopt a restrictive interpretation of Section 45, PMLA to prevent its misuse by the prosecution as a tool to build its case-in-chief through the accused’s pre-trial disclosures at the bail stage. This approach ensures that bail proceedings do not become a prosecution strategy session.

Untangling the Many Threads of the Sarla Gupta Judgment

A Three Justices' Bench of the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Sarla Gupta & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement [2025 INSC 645 (Sarla Gupta)]. The Court was hearing different appeals together, which presented somewhat similar issues that could loosely be grouped under the category of obligations on prosecuting agencies to disclose the material gathered during an investigation to the accused, in context of cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 ['PMLA']. 

While the judgment itself does not categorise issues, I think it is helpful if we are to try and make sense of its conclusions [summarised at Paragraph 55]. An attempt at the issues is as follows:

1. Whether the accused has a right of disclosure to seek copies of documents seized during searches done under the PMLA by the Enforcement Directorate? 

1A. If so, at what stage can the right be enforced and the documents disclosed / shared with the accused?

2. Whether the accused has a right of disclosure to seek copies of the documents filed by the prosecuting agency in support of its complaint under the PMLA ('relied upon documents')?

2A. If so, at what stage can the right be enforced and the relied upon documents disclosed / shared with the accused?

3. Whether the accused has a right of disclosure to seek copies of the documents seized but not placed in support of its complaint under PMLA by the prosecuting agency ('un-relied upon documents')?

3A. If so, at what stage can the right be enforced and the un-relied upon documents disclosed / shared with the accused?

Issues 1 and 1A

The first set of issues — 1 and 1A — were the easiest to answer for the Court. The PMLA itself provides that in event of a search and seizure, a list of seized items must be supplied to the person concerned, and the person can apply to get a copy of the documents when the authority concerned has decided to retain them [Sections 17 to 21]. So, the answer to issue 1 was 'yes', and the answer to 1A was that the person can apply to get copies after a decision is made to retain them for longer than thirty days.

Issues 2 and 2A

The next set of issues — 2 and 2A — are slightly more complicated because of how the PMLA and the general procedural law under the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 ['Cr.P.C.'] — now  the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ['BNSS'] — operate. The Cr.P.C. applies to PMLA prosecutions, but where there is a conflict between the two laws, the PMLA governs. In this realm of supplying complaints etc., there is no specific clause within the PMLA, taking us back to the Cr.P.C. [clarified within Sarla Gupta as well]. 

Indian criminal law envisages prosecutions can start either by a state agency investigating facts and bringing a case, or by an aggrieved party filing a case basis material it has in its possession to prove wrongdoing. Ordinarily, the state agency tasked with investigating cases is the police, and police files what is called a 'police report'. The disclosure rules for material filed with a police report are fairly clear: material which the agency is relying upon to support its case, has to be supplied [Sections 173(5), 207]. 

When it comes to a 'complaint', the Cr.P.C. stipulates that if a court finds that a person ought to face trial upon the allegations in a complaint, it must ensure a copy of the complaint is given to an accused. But, there is no corresponding right of disclosure availing to an accused here, as it is with cases launched pursuant to a police report. The limited exception, textually speaking, is a requirement for a magistrate's court to ensure that materials filed with a complaint are furnished to the accused in cases where the prosecution is one which must be conducted before a sessions court [Sections 204, 208]. I say textually, because courts have read in a similar disclosure requirement in cases launched on complaints for some time now.

This background is necessary to understand issues 2 and 2A. Even though prosecutions under PMLA are lodged after investigations by a state agency — the Enforcement Directorate — the document launching the prosecution is styled as a 'complaint' and not a police report [Section 45 PMLA]. The Cr.P.C., as we have seen, confers clear rights in cases launched on a police report, but is not so strongly worded when it comes to complaints. What this reflects is that, unlike issues 1 and 1A, here the Court in Sarla Gupta had some options on how to proceed. 

How has it answered the issues framed above? On issue 2, the Court has taken two steps. First, it clarifies that when a person is brought to court to face trial in a PMLA case, they must be provided with not just the complaint but also the materials being relied upon in support thereof [Paragraph 25]. This was held necessary owing to the general Cr.P.C. rule on supplying copies of complaints to accused persons. In other words, the Court recognised an obligation on part of the agency to supply a copy of the material it proposes to rely upon in support of its case. 

What about the right of the accused within the statute to demand for such relied upon material? Here, recall, that the rights-language is far clearer for police reports than for complaints. But since the PMLA involves no assignment of a case from a magistrate to a sessions court, the Court in Sarla Gupta noted that the Cr.P.C. complaints' clause on disclosure would not strictly apply to the PMLA [Paragraph 30]. 

It could have deemed the 'complaint' filed by the Enforcement Directorate as a 'police report' or adopted some other means to hold that the rules of Section 207 Cr.P.C. applied to PMLA complaints. If it would have done so, the Court would have thrown open the doors to topple the investigative scheme of the PMLA, because it hinges upon treating these complaints by state agencies as not being akin to police reports. There are many investigative powers that flow to the Enforcement Directorate (and other agencies) from simply not being labelled 'police'. Any ruling that dents this scheme would be extremely troubling for central investigative agencies which file 'complaints'. 

The Court was certainly aware of this position, which had been restated a few months ago by a bench comprising the Chief Justice. As a result, rather than apply either Section 207 or Section 208 by twisting their language, the Supreme Court in Sarla Gupta conveniently holds that the 'principles' of both clauses apply to the PMLA context, and all relied upon materials should be supplied [Paragraph 30]. 

Thus, the answer to issue 2 is a 'yes', but it is more an obligation on part of the agency and court rather than an issue that the accused must chase by enforcing their rights. There is a right too, just to be clear, and issue 2A stands answered by telling us that this right can be enforced from the time that an accused is first summoned to court to face a trial under the PMLA. If any deficiency exists in terms of material that the agency relied upon, the accused can seek copies, and arguments on the aspect of charge should not start till this supply of material is complete.

Issues 3 and 3A

Which then brings us to the last issues of the lot — issue 3 and 3A. That an accused has a right to seek the copy of un-relied upon documents has been an unequivocally clear position now for quite some time, and the Court merely reiterated precedent to stress upon this aspect [Paragraphs 31-33]. Issue 3A is where the controversy existed — at what stage would this right to get un-relied upon documents trigger? This section of the judgment is couched with qualifiers and it is safer to first set out the general position that the Court has identified, before delving into the devilish details:

• There is a clear right to be supplied with a list of the un-relied upon material, and this must be given along with the entire copy of the PMLA complaint i.e. prior to arguments on charge [Paragraph 41].
• There is no clear right to seek copies of un-relied upon material at the time of arguments on charge [Paragraphs 33-41].
• There is a clear right to seek copies of un-relied upon material during defence evidence by moving an appropriate application for summoning such records [Paragraphs 42-51].
• There is a clear right to seek copies of un-relied upon material during bail hearings by moving an appropriate application, and the extent of the right depends upon the stage at which the investigation is [Paragraphs 52-54].

Out of these four conclusions, the first brooks no exception nor generates any controversy. The Supreme Court has endorsed this approach of directing the agency to prepare a list of un-relied upon materials that must be supplied as part of a set of guidelines for better functioning of trials issued in 2021. Sarla Gupta has extended that logic to the PMLA as well. 

The 2021 judgment did not specifically say anything about the stage at which the accused can seek copies of the un-relied materials cited by an agency. This aspect was touched upon in two subsequent decisions — Manoj [2022 INSC 606] and Ponnusamy [2022 INSC 1177]. Out of the two, Manoj did not specifically mention a stage either and generally observed that disclosure of the un-relied upon materials was necessary to secure a fair trial. It was only Ponnusamy which specifically dealt with this exact issue — the two opinions from the bench diverged on precisely this aspect of a right to un-relied upon documents and the stage at which it would trigger. 

Curiously though, Ponnusamy is not mentioned anywhere within Sarla Gupta. This is a problem because it would seem that Sarla Gupta has diverged from the view taken in Ponnusamy. Both Ponnusamy and Sarla Gupta hold that there is no right to seek copies of un-relied upon material at the stage of charge. But where Ponnusamy held that the right would trigger at trial and that a court could consider the relevance of the material sought to be summoned while considering the request, Sarla Gupta has specifically linked the right to defence evidence, not trial generally, and has limited the scope of discretion vesting with a judge to refuse a request for summoning the materials (permitting it only on grounds of delay). 

It is unclear why Sarla Gupta specifically linked the prospect of seeking un-relied upon materials to defence evidence, and not adopted the view taken in Ponnusamy. The Supreme Court's logic in stressing upon the existence of a right for accused persons is that there is a reverse burden operating after charge is framed under the PMLA. In that case, why specifically link the right to only defence evidence? No reasons are offered to explain why an accused should remain quiet throughout prosecution evidence when having this material would enable a more effective cross-examination of witnesses at the relevant stage. Instead, the Court proposes a tortuous route, suggesting that an accused after applying for this material and obtaining it can then apply for recalling of witnesses to cross-examine them on this material. 

This course of action does not commend itself on logical grounds as mentioned above, nor does it commend itself on grounds of efficiency, economy, or strategy. Accused persons will have to adopt an artificial posture and work out two potential cross-examinations of the same witness. If a second cross-examination yields new incriminatory evidence from the witness, that would necessitate a trial court to put these statements to an accused and record a fresh statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. These are only surface-level problems, mind you, and I am sure that more emerge the moment that lawyers and courts begin to try and apply the rules of Sarla Gupta to the facts of actual cases.    

We are left with the second and fourth conclusions then — no general right to copies of un-relied material at charge, but a right to apply for such material during bail. Although Ponnusamy is not cited anywhere within Sarla Gupta, it has followed the holding in Ponnusamy that there is no right to seek un-relied materials at the stage of charge by moving applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. It also relies upon another earlier Three Justices' Bench decision in this context, Debendra Nath Padhi, which held that the hearing at charge must be confined to the record of the case, and this record consisted only of material that the prosecution brought forth. But while doing so Sarla Gupta has not slammed the door shut upon potential requests for un-relied upon material at this stage since it qualifies its position by repeatedly stating that 'ordinarily' an accused would not have the right to apply under Section before trial for copies of such materials [Paragraphs 33, 37, 49]. In the right facts, then, one may still have a chance to get un-relied materials prior to framing charge.

What complicates matters a great deal further is the fourth conclusion — that an accused has a right to apply for un-relied upon material during bail hearings. In this section of the judgment, the Court has moved entirely free of any past precedent and taken a view that fairness demands that the accused must have this right because bail under the PMLA places an onus upon the accused to show that no offence is made out. To ensure a fair opportunity for an accused to discharge this burden, the Court felt it was necessary to have a right to seek un-relied upon material which the agency might have.

This section greatly complicates the task of making sense of Sarla Gupta. Firstly, because it further undermines the already logically precarious position to allow a right to apply for un-relied upon material at the stage of defence evidence alone, since the reverse burden operates at the time the trial begins. Secondly, because if the reverse burden on an accused is such a critical hit to fairness, then why should an accused have to suffer framing charge on the basis of potentially unfair prosecutorial conduct and then get a valuable right to expose this during trial? Thirdly, and finally, because ordinarily bail will be a stage that comes before charge is framed, and if a court ends up viewing the un-relied material as being relevant to deciding the bail application it will undoubtedly end up thinking it is relevant to decide the point of charge as well. This creates a weird and inconsistent position where persons in custody may have greater opportunities to fair hearings at the stage of charge than those who are never arrested during investigation.

Sarla Gupta cites many past decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue of disclosing un-relied upon materials by prosecuting agencies. A unifying theme through all those past decisions was clearsighted acknowledgment that there was a need for a right of disclosure to mitigate against the very real possibility of unfair suppression by prosecuting agencies of material gathered in an investigation but of an exculpatory nature. But in Sarla Gupta the issue of suppression is nothing but an elephant in the room. Throughout its 86 pages, not once does Sarla Gupta mention this aspect of possible suppression and the unfair prejudice it causes, even though it is clearly the driving force behind the Court conferring a right to un-relied upon material at the bail stage. A full and frontal acknowledgment of this issue being one of the guiding reasons to confer a right of disclosure may well have yielded different configurations of how the right operates.

Conclusion

To conclude, then, One is left feeling that Sarla Gupta is yet another one of those judgments in which a bench of the Supreme Court is torn between adopting fairness as a yardstick for reading rules of criminal procedure, but is unable to adopt this yardstick consistently when faced with the ghost past judicial precedent that has taken a restrictive and unfairly textual view of the statute. Even so, the judgment is bound to be immensely relevant not just for PMLA cases, but criminal trials generally, and criminal trials with reverse onus clauses more specifically. One cannot help escape the feeling that this is not the end of the matter, but only the start of new complexities in the law on disclosure obligations and rights of accused persons.