Confession By Co-Accused U/S 50 PMLA Not Substantive Piece Of Evidence; Only Has Corroborative Value: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court observed that a confession by a co-accused in his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for the purpose of corroboration.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that, "the confessional statement of a co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA is not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only for the purpose of corroboration in support of other evidence to lend assurance to the Court in arriving at a conclusion of guilt."

Senior Counsel Dayan Krishnan and Senior Counsel Siddharth Aggarwal, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, along with others, appeared for the respondent.

The applicant, along with other co-accused, was alleged to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy between 2007 and 2014 to cheat and defraud shareholders of IFFO and Indian Potash Limited (IPL), as well as the government. The alleged fraudulent activities involved the importation of fertilizers and other materials at inflated prices. The respondent placed considerable reliance on the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA.

A pressing question that was posed before the Court was whether the confessional statement of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA can be used against another accused.

The Court observed that, "the court cannot start with the confession of the co-accused to arrive at a finding of guilt but rather after considering all other evidence placed on record and arriving at the guilt of the accused, can the court look at the statement of the co-accused to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt."

Subsequently, it was emphasized that, "when the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are part of the material collected during investigation, such statements can certainly be looked into at the stage of considering bail application albeit for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there are broad probabilities, or reasons to believe, that the bail applicant is not guilty."

Subsequently, the Court observed that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty of the offence and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Counsels Dayan Krishnan, Siddharth Aggarwal, Counsels Stuti Gujral, Madhav Khurana, Trisha Mittal, Shaurya Singh, Harsh Yadav, Aditya Mukherjee, Puneeth Ganapathy, Jayati Sinha

Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Counsels Vivek Gurnani, Baibhav

Cause Title: Sanjay Jain vs Enforcement Directorate

Click here to read/download the Judgment