Directorate of Enforcement v. Banmeet Singh

Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani, learned counsel for revisionist. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Special Counsel with Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel for respondent/E.D. (both through V.C.). Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has prayed for following reliefs: A. Allow the present application and call for record of Spl. Sessions Trial No.29 of 2024, titled ‘Directorate of Enforcement v. Banmeet Singh’ arising out of ECIR/DNSZO/04/2023 dated 24.07.2023 pending adjudication before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun District Courts, Dehradun to examine the record and exercise powers of revision; and B. Set aside and quash the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Ld. District & Session Judge, Dehradun District Courts, in Spl. Sessions Trial No.29 of 2024, titled ‘Directorate of Enforcement v. Banmeet Singh’ arising out of ECIR/DNSZO/04/ 2023 dated 24.07.2023, for which act of kindness, the Applicant shall ever pray; and C. Direct the Respondent to comply with the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court and supply copies of the un-relied-upon documents collected during the investigation but not made part of the prosecution aforementioned order dated 09.08.2024; and complaint, directed D. Pass appropriate directions to ensure that, for the purpose of exercising powers by the Courts in the State of Uttarakhand, due application of judicial mind is made to all relevant and proximate matters. The said Courts ought to address prayers for proceedings under Section 230 of the BNSS, 2023, while adhering to the following parameters: i. Ensure mandatory compliance with Section 230 of 1 the BNSS, 2023, including the supply of legible copies of all documents mentioned from (i) to (v) under the said section; and ii. Supply of list of un-relied documents to the accused person in terms of judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in To issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials Versus the State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Bearing Suo Moto Writ (Crl) No.1 of 2017 and also to determine by way of a reasoned order if any of such listed document is required at the stage of arguments on charge, if such a request is made in writing by way of an application or for refusal thereof; and In case of refusal of supply of such un-relied documents, if an opportunity is sought to inspect such documents, after appearance of accused consequent to summoning order and before framing of charge, then such permission must be granted in order to avail the right of fair trial as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement bearing SLP (Criminal) No.8772 of 2024. iii.

3. The learned counsel the revisionist submitted that in spite of the clear bar under Section 403 of the BNSS Act prohibiting Criminal Courts to alter its own judgment, the learned Special Court below vide order dated 13.12.2024 had committed grave irregularity by recalling its own order dated 09.08.2024, whereby, the respondent was directed to provide legible copies of certain documents, which form part of prosecution’s complaint and also any other document collected during the investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that in absence of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, the revisionist will not be able to raise effective defence, thereby violating his right to a fair trial. He further argued that due to lack of access of those documents, he was not able to tender submission at the charge framing stage. Therefore, he should be granted a fair opportunity right from the charge framing stage. 2

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Gupta and Another Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1063, particularly in Para 55(d) and (e), which clearly specifies that an accused can apply for production of documents at defence evidence stage. For ready reference Para 55(d) and (e) is quoted herein below:- “55.(d). At the time of hearing for framing of charge, reliance can be placed only on the documents forming part of the chargesheet. In case of the PMLA, at the time of framing charge, reliance can be placed only on those documents which are produced along with the complaint or supplementary complaints. Though the accused will be entitled to a list of documents, objects, exhibits etc. that are not relied upon by the ED at the stage of framing of charge, in ordinary course, the accused is not entitled to seek copies of the said documents at the stage of framing of charge. 55.(e) 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). At this stage, he can also apply for the production of a document or a thing that is in the custody of the prosecution but has not been produced. A fair trial is a part of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to a fair trial of the accused includes the right to defend. The right to defend consists of the right to lead the defence evidence by examining the witnesses and producing the documents. Therefore, the accused is entitled to exercise his right at the stage of entering upon defence by compelling the prosecution or a third party to produce a document or a thing in their possession or custody. The Court can decline the request of the accused for issuing process for the production of documents only on the limited grounds set out in sub-section (3) of section 233 of the CrPC.”

6. After arguing a while, learned counsel for the respondent-ED submits that he is ready to submit the documents which are being sought by the revisionist and are being relied upon by the prosecution.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on 3 record, this Court is of the considered opinion that 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 (Supra), and the revisionist can use the documents for his defence in defence evidence stage.

8. 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.

9. of. PN PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0 276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D8 4BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.07.2025 4