GURUVAYOOR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT COCHIN ZONAL OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a proposed accused entitled to copies of documents, which the complainant does not propose to rely in support of the complaint, at the pre-cognizance stage?

(2.) The petitioner is the 1st accused in ECIR No. KCZO/13/2021 pending on the file of the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam ('Trial Court', for short), which is registered on a complaint filed by the respondent, alleging that the accused have allegedly committed the offence punishable under Sec. 4 r/w. Ss. 3 and 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PML Act', for brevity).

(3.) The petitioner's case, in brief, is that the respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner and four others alleging the commission of the aforesaid offence. Upon the Trial Court issuing notice to accused, as contemplated under Sec. 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), the petitioner filed an application contending that several copies of the documents furnished by the respondent were illegible and unreadable and that copies of certain documents collected during the course of investigation, though not relied upon by the respondent, had not been supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent may be directed to furnish the readable copies of the relied- upon documents and copies of the un-relied documents to enable the petitioner to effectively exercise its valuable right of hearing conferred under Sec. 223 BNSS. The application was opposed by the respondent. The Trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the application by Annexure-D order. The petitioner challenges the legality, correctness and propriety of Annexure-D on the grounds that it suffers from manifest illegality and arbitrariness and has resulted in denial of a fair opportunity of hearing.