Directorate Of Enforcement vs M/S Vivo Mobile Communication And Ors.

$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 13.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010434412026
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026, CRL. M.A. 28409/2026
+
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. V. Raju, ASG, Mr. Zoheb
Hossain, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vivek
Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Kanishk
Maurya, Mr. Hitarth Raja and Mr.
Pranjal Tripathi, Advs.
versus

M/S VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hari Haran, Sr. Adv., Mr. V.P.
Singh, Mr. Priyank Ladoia, Mr.
Kshitiz Rao, Mr. Arjun Nagarn, Mr.
Puneet Dhanoa and Ms. Ananya
Singh, Advs. for R-2, 49 and 50.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr.
Simranjeet Singh, Ms. Neha Gupta,
Mr. Sulakshan V.S., Mr. Rishabh
Pant, Mr. Shivankar Rao, Ms. Osheen
Verma and Mr. Himanshu Kasturi,
Advs. for R-4.
Ms. Anusha Ramesh, Mr. Shiv Johar
and Ms. Gauri Pasricha, Advs. for R-
24, 25, 27, 30, 37, 39 and 40.
Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar, Mr. Satjit
Chhabra, Ms. Manisha Dubey and
Ms. Tejasvi Mahajan, Advs. for R-29,
31, 32, 33 and 41.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Divyam Agarwal, Mr. Parth Dua
and Ms. Divya Chauhan, Advs. for R-
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 1 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16

26, 28, 31, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45
and 48.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, via the present petition filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( pari materia to Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), assails several orders, including the
order dated 08.08.2026, passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-04,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Ct. Case No. 102/2023, titled
‘ Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s Vivo Mobile Communications & Ors. ’
(hereinafter the “ impugned order ”).
2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs in the present petition:

“ (i) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 08.08.2026 passed by the Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CT
Case No. 102 of 2023 titled “Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s Vivo
Mobile Communication & Ors.”; and
(ii) Expunge/set aside the adverse observations and findings recorded
in the orders dated 20.07.2026, 25.07.2026 and 08.08.2026 against
the Petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement and its Investigating
Officer, including the observations regarding alleged deliberate
avoidance of service of Relied Upon Documents, alleged
noncompliance with Sections 207/208 Cr.P.C. and the alleged
changing stand of the Petitioner; and
(iii) Modify/set-aside the directions mentioned in the impugned orders
requiring the physical presence of the Investigating Officer on each
and every date of hearing, particularly when the Directorate is duly
represented through the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor and the
Investigating Officer has appeared on multiple occasions both
physically and through VC in CT Case no. 102 of 2023 before the Ld.
Trial Court.
(iv) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as it may deem fit in the
interest of justice. ”
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 2 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16

3. The impugned order came to be passed by the trial Court in the
proceedings under Section 207/208 of the CrPC in complaint proceedings
arising out of ECIR bearing no. ECIR/STF/02/2022, dated 03.02.2022.
These proceedings, under Section 207/208 of the CrPC, began after the trial
Court took cognisance of the matter on 20.12.2023. It is noted that
successive rounds of applications alleging non-supply, or supply of
dim/illegible copies, were taken up by the trial Court on several occasions.
4. On one such occasion, i.e. , on 20.07.2026, the trial Court, taking note
of the statement of the Investigating Officer (hereinafter “ IO ”), observed as
follows:
“ IO/AD Ankit Kumar present in the court submits that sufficient
compliance has been made and legible documents are provided to the
accused persons and the documents which are illegible and accepted
by the department as illegible are dropped from the list of relied on
documents. As a token of submission made, signature of the IO/AD
Ankit Kumar is taken on this order-sheet.
*
To the query of this court, IO is not able to give satisfactory answer
and the conduct of IO seems to be evasive in nature as he submits that
he is not aware of all the applications.
It is very sad state of affair on behalf of Directorate of Enforcement as
they are not able to satisfy Section 208 Cr.P.C. till date despite
multiple assurances by the Department to this court. It is made clear
that last and final opportunity is given to the Directorate of
Enforcement to finally provide copies of the RUDs to the applicants
and in case copies are not provided, then to come with satisfactory
explanation how they have complied with Section 208 Cr.P.C.
requirement. It is made clear that no further opportunity after
25.07.2026 be given. ”
5. The aforesaid order, dated 20.07.2026, was assailed before this Court
in Crl. M.C. 5669/2026, which was disposed of on 06.08.2026 in the
following terms:
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 3 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16

“ 1. The various orders passed by learned Trial Court would indicate
that qua majority of the accused persons, there is already compliance
of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Some of the accused have also prayed for
discharge and the learned Trial Court is also hearing arguments on
such application.
2. It is also submitted by Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG and Mr. Zoheb
Hossain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the best
available copies of several relied upon documents have already been
supplied. Same is, however, disputed by the defence. Needless to say,
learned Trial Court is in a best position to take appropriate decision
with respect to the abovesaid aspect. ”
6. Thereafter, the petitioner placed on record a Status Report dated
31.07.2026 before the trial Court, wherein the petitioner sought to clarify its
stand regarding the ‘dropping’ of documents, in the following manner:
“ …the submission made on behalf of the Directorate was that no
Relied Upon Document had been dropped as a whole from the list of
relied-upon documents. The submission was confined to the effect that
certain pages, which were alleged by the accused to be illegible and
were accepted by the Directorate to be so, were not being
independently relied upon, without affecting the evidentiary value or
the material facts sought to be established through the respective
Relied Upon Documents .”
7. The matter was then taken up by the trial Court on 08.08.2026, on
which date the impugned order came to be passed.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the record.
9. It is apposite to note that the petitioner itself has, in paragraph 2 of the
petition, stated as under:
“ 2. That the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is confined to
the procedural and jurisdictional infirmities arising from the orders
and directions passed by the Ld. Trial Court and does not seek any
adjudication by this Hon’ble Court on the merits of the substantive
proceedings pending before the Ld. Special Court. ”
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 4 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16

(emphasis supplied)
10. The trial Court in the impugned order passed several operative
directions, apart from the observations challenged by the petitioner. These
directions fall within the scope of jurisdiction of the trial Court at the stage
of Section 207/208 of the CrPC. This Court is not inclined to interfere with
the same.
11. Further, each of the grievances raised by the petitioner in the present

petition qua the operative directions, viz. , (i) whether the best available
copies of the Relied Upon Documents (hereinafter “ RUDs ”) have in fact
been supplied to each of the accused persons and (ii) whether any RUD is
not available with the petitioner - raises questions of fact which can only be
determined by the trial Court on its own record. Pertinently, the trial Court
in the impugned order directed:
“ It is made clear that the issue with regard to the providing of copies
of RUDs will be decided finally
on 19.08.2026 at 02:00 PM .”
(emphasis supplied)
12. The trial Court is thus seized of, and is actively dealing with, the very
issue sought to be raised before this Court. It is not for this Court, in exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, to pre-empt the
determination which the trial Court is required to, and eventually going to,
make.
13. It would be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI , (2018) 16
SCC 299 , wherein it observed as under:
“ 32. The wisdom of the legislature and the object of final and
expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding cannot be ignored. In
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 5 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16

exercise of its power the High Court is to balance the freedom of an
individual on the one hand and security of the society on the other.
Only in case of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction the High
Court may exercise its jurisdiction.
The acknowledged experience is
that where challenge to an order framing charge is entertained, the
matter remains pending for long time which defeats the interest of
justice. ”
(emphasis supplied)
14. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case of

patent illegality or want of jurisdiction, qua the substantive directions passed
in the impugned order. On the contrary, the trial Court, via the impugned
order, by expediting and ensuring the furnishing of copies of RUDs to the
accused persons by the petitioner, has sought to fulfil the legal mandate
prescribed by Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC. The observations of the
apex Court in Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement , 2025 INSC 645 ,
concerning the application of Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC to the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) proceedings can be
noted below:
“ 30. 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;
:
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 6 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16

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 subsection (3) of Section 204 of
the CrPC (sub-section (3) of Section 227 of the BNSS). ”
(emphasis supplied)
15. With regard to the petitioner’s grievance that its submission
regarding ‘dropping’ of the documents has not been correctly recorded, the
legal position is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at
the hearing, recorded in the order of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so
stated, and that if a party is of the view that any of its statements is wrongly
recorded, that party must call the attention of the very Court which made the
record.
16. Thus, the assertions made by the petitioner regarding certain alleged
oral exchanges in the trial Court, which find no reflection in the order sheets,
cannot be gone into by this Court.
17. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

substantive directions passed in the impugned order. The petitioner shall
complete supply of any RUD not yet supplied within such time as the
learned trial Court fixes. If any RUD is not supplied, the learned trial Court
shall decide, after hearing the petitioner and the accused, whether and to
what extent the prosecution may rely on that document.
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 7 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16

Adverse Remarks and Observations Contained in the Impugned Order;
Directions Concerning the Presence of the Investigating Officer
18. The learned trial Court is considering a complaint against 56 accused,
with voluminous documents and many applications. Its anxiety to bring the
stage of Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC to a close, nearly three years after
cognisance, is justified.
19. The directions to complete the supply of RUDs and decision on
related/attendant aspects are required to be taken expeditiously. The same is
also mandated vide order dated 06.08.2026 passed by this Court.
20. The observations on the conduct of the IO and the petitioner were
made by the trial Court in the aforesaid context. The trial Court was faced
with successive assurances and timelines that were not met. It expressed its
dissatisfaction in strong terms to secure compliance.
21. The observations are, therefore, not findings on the bona fides /

integrity of the IO or the petitioner. Read so, they do not call for expunction.
Lest there be any ambiguity, it is clarified that the said observations are not
findings on the bona fides / integrity of the officers concerned with the IO or
the petitioner.
22. Accordingly, the observations shall not influence the decision on the
supply of RUDs or any other issue in the case, and they shall not be used
against the IO or the petitioner, including its officers, in any other
proceedings, including any administrative and service proceedings.
23. The learned trial Court is entitled to require the IO’s presence
whenever it is needed for the progress of the case, for instance, to answer a
query regarding the documents or the digital devices. The standing direction
for the IO to remain present on every date, with no exemption regardless of
CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 8 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16

the circumstances, is not, however, necessary. The said direction is,
accordingly, modified.
24. The IO shall appear, physically or through video-conferencing, as
permitted, on each date for which his presence is specifically required by an
order stating the purpose.
25. It is made clear that the remaining directions in the impugned order
dated 08.08.2026 are not interfered with.
26. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously.
27. Nothing herein shall be read as an expression of opinion on the
adequacy of the petitioner’s compliance or on the merits of the case.
28. The petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of in
the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 13, 2026 /r/vk

CRL.M.C. 6797/2026 Page 9 of 9


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:36:16