Vivo Case: Delhi HC Directs ED to Supply Any Outstanding Relied-On Documents, With IO to Attend Only When Specifically Required by Trial Court

The Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging orders made in complaint proceedings arising from ECIR/STF/02/2022.

The proceedings concerned compliance with Sections 207/208 CrPC and the supply of relied-upon documents (“RUDs”) to 56 accused persons.

The trial court had made directions concerning document supply, recorded adverse observations about the ED and its Investigating Officer (“IO”), and required the IO’s presence on every hearing date.

The High Court had earlier declined to determine whether the best available copies had been supplied, leaving that factual question to the trial court.

The ED sought to set aside the trial court’s order dated 8 August 2026, expunge the adverse observations, and modify the standing attendance direction.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, but, as stated in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299, that jurisdiction should be exercised in this context only in cases of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction.

Sections 207 and 208 CrPC embody fair-trial protections and require the provision of relevant documents to the accused; the Supreme Court in Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 INSC 645, held that these principles apply to complaints under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA and that the requisite documents must be supplied to the accused.

A court’s record of what transpired at a hearing is conclusive as to the facts recorded; a party claiming that its statement was inaccurately recorded must raise the matter before the court that made the record.

The High Court declined to decide whether legible or best available RUD copies had been supplied, or whether any document was unavailable, because these were factual matters the trial court was already considering on its own record.

The trial court’s directions to complete supply and determine the consequences of any non-supply fell within its jurisdiction and advanced the statutory fair-trial requirements; the ED established neither patent illegality nor want of jurisdiction.

The Court treated the adverse observations as expressions of dissatisfaction in the context of missed assurances and timelines, not as findings on the bona fides or integrity of the ED or IO.

It therefore declined to expunge them but clarified their limited effect.

The IO’s presence could be required when necessary for the progress of the case, but a blanket requirement to attend every date was unnecessary.

The substantive directions in the impugned order were not disturbed; the ED was to complete supply of any outstanding RUDs within the time fixed by the trial court, which would decide whether and to what extent the prosecution could rely on any document not supplied.

The adverse observations were not expunged, but were declared not to be findings on the bona fides or integrity of the ED or IO, and not to influence the RUD issue or be used against them in other proceedings.

The IO was required to appear, physically or by video-conferencing as permitted, only on dates when the trial court specifically required the IO’s presence by an order stating the purpose.