Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents: Delhi HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3732/2017 & CM No.16414/2017 POONAM JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Ms. Bhawani Gupta & Mr. M.P. Rastogi, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

9. The exception includes both the „persons‟ and „authorities.‟ It is inconceivable that the person against whom the prosecution or the proceedings is proposed can be denied the material relied upon to prosecute such person. The basic principle of natural justice requires that the person being proceeded against has to be furnished with copies of the material (whether in the form of documents or statements) gathered against such person and which is being relied upon by the authority which is prosecuting such person. This may, in a given case, and if the prosecution or agency makes out a case in that behalf, be subject to safeguards requiring the person to maintain the confidentiality of such document depending on their nature and contents. But to say that the person being prosecuted or proceeded against can only be 'shown' such documents, but not provided copies thereof  is untenable even on a plain reading of Article 26 (2) of the OECD Model Convention.

10. As regards the contention that a SCN is not required to be issued, it is obvious that the Department itself recognises the importance of complying with the rules of natural justice and has therefore rightly issued the SCN to the Petitioners, which has to be responded to by them. Indeed, for an effective response, the Petitioners would be required not merely to be 'shown' the material relied upon in the SCN but with copies thereof. This would include their own statements, documents seized during the search and documents gathered from other sources including statements of bank accounts, relied upon against them to be provided copies thereof. Such a requirement inheres in the principles of natural justice and would be applicable even if the statute governing the proceedings does not specifically mandate it.