# M/S Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd v. Directorate of Enforcement Represented Asst. Director

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 862
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No 1535 of 2026
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-supreme-technofabs-pvt-ltd-v-directorate-of-enforcement-represented-asst-54720
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Moreover, in the present case, the prosecution sanction was granted on 11.05.2016,
whereas the present petition challenging its validity has been filed on 30.01.2026 and there is no
explanation for the delay of almost a decade in challenging the validity of the prosecution sanction.
The trial is proceeding and the officer who had granted prosecution sanction has already been
examined as PW-1.

11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Badal
(supra), it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine the validity of the prosecution
sanction order at this stage, more so on a petition filed after a delay of 10 years from the date of the
prosecution sanction order, when examination of prosecution witnesses is already in progress.

12. Accordingly, this Court declines to examine the validity of the prosecution sanction
order at this stage and it is left open for the petitioner to raise the plea of validity of the prosecution
sanction order before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

13. The present petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 862
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No 1535 of 2026
Alongwith
Application U/S 482. No 2175 of 2026

M/S Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Represented Asst. Director ...Opposite Party

Issue for consideration
The applicant filed a petition u/s 528 BNSS challenging a trial court's rejection of the applicants' request for
copies of the complaint and prosecution documents

Headnotes
A. Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 120-B, 420, 477-A-Prevention of Money laundering act,
2002-Sections 3,4 & 44(1(b)-Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,2023-Section 223 & 528-Supply
of documents at pre-cognizance stage- Section 223 proviso, BNSS, mandates that no court shall
take cognizance of an offence without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard-Accused
entitled to copies of complaint at pre-cognizance stage-Right of hearing cannot be a mere empty
formality-Principles of fair play and right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution
necessitate disclosure of prosecution material at this stage-Order of trial court rejecting supply
of documents set aside-Petitions allowed.(Para 20 to 24)
Held
4 All. M/S Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Represented Asst. Director
863
The court held that the statutory proviso to Section 223 BNSS creates a strict legislative departure from
section 200 of the repealed CrPC by explicitly mandating a pre-cognizance hearing for the accused. The
Supreme Court's ruling in Sarla Gupta is distinguished as it interpreted the old CrPC, whereas the BNSS
framework successfully advances the stage of document disclosure. Consequently, the accused is entitled to
receive copies of the complaint, any pre-cognizance statements, and all documents or section 50 PMLA
statements relied upon by the ED. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Sarla Gupta & Anr. Vs Directorate of Enforcement:(2025) 7 SCC 626, Basanagauda R. Patil Vs Shivananda S.
Patil : (2024) SCC OnLine Kar 96, Prateek Agarwal Vs State of U.P. & Anr,: 2024 SCC OnLine All 8212 &
Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. & Anr. : 2025 SCC OnLine All 4884 ,Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs
Enforcement Directorete: (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1221-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Money laundering act, 2002-Sections 3, 4 & 44(1(b)-Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

List of Keywords
PMLA, Pre-cognizance hearing, Supply of documents, Opportunity of being heard, Section 200 CrPC, Section
223 BNSS, Enforcement Directorate.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICITON :APPLICATION U/S 482 No.- 1535 OF 2026
M/s Supreme Tecnofabs Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Mr. Mohan Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
represented Asst. Director
From the judgment and order dated 03.04.2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Applicant(s)
Pranjal Krishna , Suhaib Ashraf
Advs. for Opposite Party(s)
Rohit Tripathi, Kuldeep Srivatava

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna and Sri Amar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel for the opposite party-Directorate of Enforcement and
perused the records.

2. Both the aforesaid petitions have been filed under Section 528 BNSS challenging the
validity of an order dated 13.01.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I.,
Court No.3, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No.5058 of 2025, arising out of ECIR
No.ALSZO/06/2020, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Police Station
Enforcement Directorate, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners for being supplied
copies of documents annexed to the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement have been
rejected.

3. As only a single legal point is involved in both the petitions, the Directorate of
Enforcement has filed a counter affidavit in Application No. 1535 of 2026 only and the learned
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for ED has stated that the same may be read for deciding both the petitions and there is no
requirement for filing a separate counter affidavit in the other petition.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 04.11.2019 the CBI had filed an F.I.R.
bearing No. RC0062019A0016 in Police Station CBI/ACB, under Sections 120-B, 420, 477-A
I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a
company M/s JVL Agro Industries Limited, seven other named persons and some unknown public
servants alleging that a complaint dated 02.11.2019 had been received from an Assistant General
Manager of Bank of Baroda, Varanasi Region, Varanasi alleging commission of offences of
criminal conspiracy, cheating, falsification of records and criminal misconduct by the Chairman,
Directors/Guarantors of M/s JVL Agro Industries Limited, Chartered Accountant of M/s Singh
Dixit and Company, Chartered Account of M/s Sparsh and Company and some unknown public
servants, whereby the Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank had been cheated to the tune of
Rs.1036.43 crores. The petitioners were not named in the F.I.R.

5. After investigation, the CBI submitted a charge sheet dated 27.12.2024 against M/s JVL
Agro Industries Limited, Satya Narayan Jhunjhunwala, Adarsh Jhunjhunwala, Rajneesh
Vishwakarma, Rahul Kumar Singh and Ashok Kumar Pandey for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A I.P.C. The petitioners were not named in the charge-sheet.

6. Thereafter the Directorate of Enforcement has filed a complaint in the Court of Special
Judge, CBI-III, Lucknow against 25 parties, including some companies and some individuals,
which also include M/s Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd (the applicant in Application No.1535 of
2026) and Anil Kumar Khemka (the applicant in Application No.2175 of 2026. Annexure No.1 to
the complaint contains a list of 81 documents which are relied upon by the Directorate of
Enforcement and which runs into 2231 pages.

7. The Special Judge issued notices to the accused persons under Section 223(1) BNSS.
The petitioners and the other accused persons filed applications before the Special judge requesting
for being provided with the copies of the complaint along with all its annexures and the documents
relied upon, to enable them to advance submissions. The application has been rejected by means of
the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 holding that the accused persons are entitled to received the
copies of the documents only after the Court takes cognizance of the offence under PMLA,
whereas in the present case cognizance is yet to be taken. Mere filing of the charge-sheet or
complaint does not entitle an accused person to demand copies of documents, before the Court
takes cognizance of the offence.

8. Assailing the validity of the impugned order, Sri. Pranjal Krishna, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner, has submitted that the proviso appended to Section 223 BNSS provides that no
Court shall take cognizance of any offence without giving the accused an opportunity of hearing.
The accused can avail the opportunity of hearing only when he is aware of the material against him
that is being relied upon by the prosecution, because the accused has to explain and persuade the
Court that the material does not make out a case for taking cognizance of the offence.
4 All. M/S Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Represented Asst. Director
865
9. Per contra, Sri. Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the Directorate of
Enforcement has submitted that Section 231 BNSS provides that copies of the material relied upon
by the prosecution shall be provided to the accused when he appears before the Court in response to
the summons issued by the Court after taking cognizance of the offence. He has submitted that the
statute does not provide for providing copies of the prosecution material before the Court takes
cognizance of the offence.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner have placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Gupta and another Vs. Directorate of Enforcement: (2025)
7 SCC 626 and a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Basanagauda R.Patil Vs.
Shivananda S. Patil: (2024) SCC OnLine Kar. 96, which has been followed by a coordinate Bench
of this court in the case of Prateek Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2024 SCC OnLine
All 8212 and Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and another: 2025 SCC OnLine All
4884. He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Kushal Kumar Agarwal v.
Enforcement Directorate: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221.

11. The learned counsel for the ED has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Gupta and another Vs. Directorate of Enforcement: (2025)
7 SCC 626.

12. Section 223 of BNSS provides that a Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking
cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses
present. The proviso appended to Section 223 BNSS provides that cognizance of an offence shall
not be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

13. Section 231 BNSS provides for providing copies of the prosecution documents to an
accused person after cognizance of the offence is taken and the accused is summoned by the Court.
It also provides that supply of documents in electronic form shall be considered as duly furnished.

14. In Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Enforcement Directorate, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

 "5. This Court has taken a consistent view that a complaint filed by the Enforcement
Directorate under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA will be governed by Sections 200 to 204 of the
CrPC. This view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Yash Tuteja v. Union of India 2024
SCC OnLine SC 533 and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate (2024) 7 SCC 61. Therefore, the
provisions of Chapter XVI, containing Sections 223 to 226, will also apply to a complaint under
Section 44 of the PMLA. As the complaint has been filed after 1st July, 2024, Section 223 of the
BNSS will apply to the present complaint."

15. In Sarla Gupta v. Enforcement Directorate, (2025) 7 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that: -

 "33.Now, we come to Section 208 CrPC. When a case is instituted by way of a
complaint under Section 200 CrPC, if it appears to the learned Magistrate issuing process that the
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence is triable by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate is duty-bound to supply the copies
of the statements recorded under Section 200 or Section 202 of all the persons examined by the
learned Magistrate to the accused. He is also duty-bound to supply to the accused the statements
and confessions, if any, recorded under Section 161 or Section 164, and any document produced
before the learned Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely. Even Section 208 does
not permit withholding of any documents from the accused. If a document is bulky, it allows the
accused to inspect it.

 34.If we peruse Sections 209 and 238 CrPC (Sections 232 and 261 of the BNNS), these
provisions reiterate the mandatory requirement of providing the documents referred to in Sections
207 and 208CrPC.

 35.Both Sections 207 and 208, on the face of it, do not specifically apply to a complaint
under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. But, there is no reason why the principles laid down under
Sections 207 and 208 should not be applied to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA.
The provisions are consistent with the principles of fair play. The object of the provisions is to
protect the rights of accused persons. An accused is entitled to a fair trial as he has the right to
defend himself. That is the essence of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, once cognizance is
taken on the basis of a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, the learned Special Judge
must direct that along with the process, a copy of the complaint and the following documents must
be provided to the accused:

 (a) Statements recorded by the learned Special Judge of the complainant and the
witnesses, if any, before taking cognizance;

 (b) The documents including the copies of the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA
produced before the Special Court, along with the complaint, and the documents produced
subsequently by the ED till the date of taking cognizance; and

 (c) Copies of the supplementary complaints and the documents, if any, produced with
supplementary complaints.

 After cognizance is taken on the basis of the complaint, the ED cannot be heard to say
that a document has been produced with the complaint or in the proceedings of the complaint, but
it is not a relied upon document. The copies of documents must be supplied along with a copy of the
complaint as required by sub-section (3) of Section 204CrPC [sub-section (3) of Section 227
BNSS]."

16. The conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Gupta case (supra)
have been summed up in the following words: -

 "Conclusion:

 68.Hence, some of our important conclusions are as under:
4 All. M/S Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Represented Asst. Director
867
 68.1.When records, instruments or documents of title of the property are seized along
with the property under Sections 17 and 18 of the PMLA, the accused from whom the same are
seized is entitled to true copies thereof;

 68.2.Once cognizance is taken on the basis of a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of
the PMLA, the learned Special Judge must direct that along with the process, a copy of the
complaint and the following documents be provided to the accused:

 (i) Statements recorded by the learned Special Judge of the complainant and the
witnesses, if any, before taking cognizance;

 (ii) The documents including the copies of the statements under Section 50 of the
PMLA produced before the Special Court, along with the complaint, and the documents
produced subsequently by the ED till the date of taking cognizance; and

 (iii) Copies of the supplementary complaints and the documents, if any, produced with
supplementary complaints.

 68.3.We hold that a copy of the list of statements, documents, material objects and
exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the
accused. As held by this Court, the object is to ensure that the accused has knowledge of the
documents, objects, etc. in the custody of the investigating officer which are not relied upon so
that at the appropriate stage, the accused can apply by invoking the provisions of Section
91CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) for providing copies of the documents which are not relied upon by
the prosecution.

 68.4.At the time of hearing for framing of charge, reliance can be placed only on the
documents forming part of the charge-sheet. 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.

 68.5.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)CrPC
[Section 256(3) 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 233CrPC.
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 68.6.When at the stage of defence evidence of the accused, documents are produced on
the prayer of the accused and the accused desires to cross-examine any of the prosecution
witnesses based on the said documents, it is always open for the accused to apply under Section
311CrPC (Section 348 BNSS) to recall a prosecution witness already examined for further crossexamination. The reason is that the right to effectively cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is
also a part of the right to have a fair trial. The accused can exercise this right even if evidence of
both sides is closed.

 68.7.As compared to traditional penal statutes, at the time of trial of the offence
under the PMLA, there is a huge negative burden put on the accused. Therefore, it is all the
more necessary that sub-section (3) of Section 233CrPC [sub-section (3) of Section 256 BNSS]
should be liberally construed in favour of the accused. The reason is that the constitutional
validity of Section 24 has been upheld on the ground that the accused has a full opportunity to
show that he has not violated the provisions of the PMLA. He is entitled to rebut the presumption.
Therefore, if the Special Court refuses the prayer made by the accused in terms of sub-section (3)
of Section 233 for compelling the attendance of any witness or for production of a document in
custody of the ED or a third party, the accused will not be in a position to discharge the onerous
burden on him under Section 24 of the PMLA. Hence, the valuable right of the accused under
Section 233(3)CrPC needs to be protected.

 68.8.At the time of hearing of an application for bail governed by Section 45(1)(ii) in
connection with the offences under Section 3 of the PMLA, an accused is entitled to invoke Section
91CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) seeking production of unrelied upon documents. If investigation or
further investigation in progress, the ED is entitled to raise objection to production of documents
sought by the accused on the ground that if the documents are disclosed at this stage to the
accused, it may prejudice the investigation. Only if the court after perusing the documents is
satisfied that the disclosure of the documents at that stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation,
it can deny the prayer for the production of such documents."

 (Emphasis added)

17. A study of the judgment in the case of Sarla Gupta (supra) reveals that the Honble
Supreme Court has taken into considerations the provisions of Cr.P.C. and has emphasised on the
principles of fair play and protection of the rights of accused persons to a fair trial by giving him
the complete right to defend himself as a part of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution. Under provisions of Cr.P.C., the accused had the right to defend himself
only after the Court had taken cognizance of an offence and had summoned him to face the trial
and keeping in view the provisions of Cr.P.C., the Honble Supreme Court had held that upon
appearance before the Court, the accused would be entitled to receive all the prosecution
documents as mentioned in the judgment and noted above.

18. Cr.P.C. stands repealed and replaced by BNSS, which contains a proviso appended to
Section 223 providing that the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence without giving the
accused an opportunity of being heard. As the judgment in the case of Sarla Gupta (supra) takes
into consideration the provisions of Cr.P.C., it does not take into consideration the proviso
4 All. M/S Supreme Technofabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Represented Asst. Director
869
appended to Section 223 BNSS, providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused persons before
the Court takes cognizance of an offence.

19. The judgment in the case of Sarla Gupta (supra) categorically lays down that upon
appearance before the trial Court, an accused is entitled to receive copies of the entire prosecution
material mentioned in the judgment. As under the proviso appended to Section 223 BNSS, the
accused has been given an opportunity of hearing before the Court takes cognizance of an offence,
it necessary follows that the accused will be entitled to receive copies of the documents mentioned
in paragraph 68.2 of the judgment when he appears before the trial Court to explain as to why the
trial Court should not take cognizance of the offence.

20. Section 223 of BNSS corresponds to Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. which did not contain a
provision for an opportunity of hearing being provided to an accused person at the pre-cognizance
stage. However, a Proviso has been added to Section 223 for giving opportunity of hearing to the
accused persons at pre-cognizance stage. When the corresponding provision in the new statute that
has replaced the earlier provision, has introduced a specific addition to the corresponding provision
of the earlier statute, the unambiguous intention of the Legislature is to deviate from the earlier
provision and there is no room for interpreting the provision in any other manner. The legislature
has in its wisdom introduced the provision for giving opportunity of hearing to the accused persons
at pre-cognizance stage and this statutory provision has to be implemented in a meaningful manner.
The opportunity of hearing will not be effective and meaningful unless the accused is provided
copies of the entire material relied upon by the prosecution as mentioned in paragraph 68.2 of the
judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Gupta (supra).

21. In Basanagouda R. Patil v. Shivananda S. Patil, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 96, the
Karnataka High Court held that: -

 "10. Therefore, the procedural drill would be this way: -

 A complaint is presented before the Magistrate under Section 223 of the BNSS; on
presentation of the complaint, it would be the duty of the Magistrate/concerned Court to examine
the complainant on oath, which would be his sworn statement and examine the witnesses present if
any, and the substance of such examination should be reduced into writing. The question of taking
of cognizance would not arise at this juncture. The magistrate has to, in terms of the proviso, issue
a notice to the accused who is given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, notice shall be
issued to the accused at that stage and after hearing the accused, take cognizance and regulate its
procedure thereafter.

 11. The proviso indicates that an accused should have an opportunity of being heard.
Opportunity of being heard would not mean an empty formality. Therefore, the notice that is sent to
the accused in terms of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS shall append to it the
complaint; the sworn statement; statement of witnesses if any, for the accused to appear and submit
his case before taking of cognizance. In the considered view of this Court, it is the clear purport of
Section 223 of BNSS 2023."
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22. The aforesaid view of the Karnataka High Court has been followed and reiterated by
coordinate Benches of this court in Prateek Agarwal (supra) and Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi
(supra).

23. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the
proviso appended to Section 223, which provides that an accused shall be granted an opportunity of
hearing before the trial court takes cognizance of the offence, applies to complaints filed under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act. While giving an opportunity of hearing to an accused person
under the aforesaid proviso, the learned Special Judge must direct that a copy of the complaint and
the following documents be provided to the accused: -

 (i) Statements recorded by the learned Special Judge of the complainant and the
witnesses, if any, before taking cognizance;

 (ii) The documents including the copies of the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA
produced before the Special Court, along with the complaint, and the documents produced
subsequently by the ED till the date of taking cognizance; and

 (iii) Copies of the supplementary complaints and the documents, if any, produced with
supplementary complaints.

24. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 13.01.2026, passed
by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I., Court No.3, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case
No.5058 of 2025, arising out of ECIR No.ALSZO/06/2020, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, Police Station Enforcement Directorate, whereby the applications filed by
the petitioners for being supplied copies of documents annexed to the complaint filed by the
Directorate of Enforcement have been rejected, is set aside. The application is allowed and the trial
Court is directed to provide copies of the documents mentioned above to the petitioners. The
parties shall bear their own costs of the case.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 870
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2993 of 2026

Shubhra Tiwari ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration