Can't supply to accused documents not relied upon by IO, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 22

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that documents not relied upon by the investigating officer (IO) cannot be supplied to an accused. Only a list of such documents was required to be supplied.

Permit petitioners to file application for list

The petitioners can at the most be permitted to file an appropriate application for supply of list of un-relied upon documents, if they so require and so desire. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

The ruling by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri of the High Court came on two petitions for supplying copies of documents seized by the Directorate of Enforcement from the petitioners’ office/premises during raids. The pleas, initially placed before Gurugram Special Judge, were dismissed, vide impugned order dated March 22, following which the petitions were filed before the High Court.

Taking up the matter, Justice Puri observed that the core issue involved in the present case was whether the documents seized by the ED during raids could be supplied in a complaint case like the present under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The issue could be further split to determine the kind of documents that could be supplied such as the “relied upon documents” and the “un-relied upon documents”.

Justice Puri asserted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court amended its “Rules and Orders” pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment. The rules provided that every accused should be supplied with the statements of the witness recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, and a list of documents, material objects and exhibits seized during investigation and relied upon by the IO.

The explanation further provided that the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits would also specify statements, documents, material objects and exhibits not relied upon by the investigating officer.

Justice Puri observed that it had, in other words, been provided by the rules that a list should be supplied to the accused regarding the documents not relied upon by the investigating officer. But there was nothing in the rules that the un-relied upon documents were also required to be supplied to the accused.