Order 31

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
Ct. 32/2024
ECIR/HQ/08/2020/2020
CNR no. DLCT11-001235-2024
U/s. 45 r/w 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
for commission of offence u/s. 3 and punishable u/s. 4 of PMLA
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot @V.N. Dhoot
& Ors.
27.07.2026
Present: Mr. N. K. Matta, Ld. SPP for DoE along with Ld. counsel Sh.
Faizan Khan
(Physically).
Mr. Sanjay Singh Rawat AEO, DoE
(Physically).
A-1 Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot @V. N. Dhoot
(VC) who
otherwise is
exempted from personal appearance vide order
dated 10.03.2026, under IA No. 1/2026, with Ld. Counsel Mr.
Ujjwal Jain
(Physically).
A-2 Pradip Kumar Nandlal Dhoot @ P.N. Dhoot
(VC) with Ld.
Counsels Ujjwal Jain, Mr. Akash Tiwari & Mr. Mayank Sharma
(Physically).
A-3 Raj Kumar Nandlal Dhoot @ R.N. Dhoot
(VC), with Ld
.
Counsel Sh. Sandeep S. Ladda
(VC).
On behalf of A-4 M/s Videocon Industries Ltd., Ld. Counsel Mr.
Shantanu Tyagi
(VC), who appears on behalf of Insolvency
Resolution Professional (IRP).
On behalf of Mr. Pravin Navinder, Liquidator of A-5 M/s
Videocon Oil Ventures Ltd., Ld. Counsel Mr. Agni Sen
(VC),
whereas Mr. Uddeshya Singh
(Physically).
Proceeded against A-6 to A-13 in absentia in terms of Section 342
of BNSS vide order dated 10.03.2026.
For proposed A14 Sachin Dev Duggal, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr.
Vikram Chaudhri
(VC), whereas Ld. Counsels Mr. Swapnil
Srivastava & Mr. Aditya Jain
(Physically).
Afresh application under IA no.14/2026 is preferred today on
behalf of A-1 and A-2 by Sh. Ujjwal Jain Advocate. Copy of this
application supplied to DoE. Heard on this application.
Under this application the applicants pray that inspection of
the unrelied documents (URDs) according to the list filed by DoE on the
Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
2
previous date, be permitted.
So far as this prayer is concerned, there is no difficulty in
allowing the same and an accused has a right to inspect the documents kept
by the Prosecuting Agency in the list of URDs. This part of the prayer of
this application stands allowed and let DoE permit inspection of URDs by
the counsel holding Vakalatnama for A-1 & A-2 at their Malkhana at a
convenient date and time to both sides, by exchanging prior emails in this
regard. This takes care of prayer (A) & (B) in this application.
So far as prayer (C) is concerned, the applicants seek liberty to
prefer application u/s 94 of BNSS (Section 91 of Cr.PC) qua the documents
that may have direct and crucial bearing on the issue of charge. No such
liberty is required to be obtained from the Court and no such liberty
therefore needs to be expressly given here. This part of the prayer can be
dismissed straightaway and as and when the applicants prefer any such
application u/s 94 BNSS, at appropriate stage, the same would be
considered then. IA no.14/26 accordingly stands disposed off.
On behalf of proposed A-14 Sachin Dev Duggal, today an
application (IA no.15/26) has been preferred seeking consideration of
some documents. His case is at the stage of hearing him u/s 223 of
BNSS. A copy of this application is supplied to DoE. DoE seeks time to
reply to this application. Let reply be filed with advance copy to
proposed A-14. The arguments of proposed A-14 on this application as
well as hearing him u/s 223 of BNSS shall be done on the next date of
hearing. Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for proposed A-14 through VC
today submits that he would physically appear and argue on the next date
of hearing. According to his convenience and availability the matter is
fixed for arguments qua A-14 on 29.08.2026. IA no.15/26 is accordingly
kept pending.
Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
3
In the previous ordersheets it is already noted that another IA
No.9/26 preferred by DoE seeking NBWs of proposed A-14 shall be
decided by this Court at the time of/ after hearing proposed A-14 on the
point of Section 223 of BNSS. IA no.9/26 is also kept pending.
There are other applications preferred by other accused
persons, viz. on behalf of A-1 & A-2, under IA nos.4, 5, 12 & 13 of 2026,
are pending u/s 230 of BNSS. Similarly, on behalf of A-5, IA no.6/2026
is pending. The matter is passed over with a direction that the counsel for
DoE, representative of the complainant, ld. Counsels for A-1, A-2 & A-5
shall sit together and sort out as to which documents are deficient/ yet to
be supplied from the relied upon documents.
After about one and a half hours the matter has been again taken up when
the counsels for DoE, A-1, A-2 & A-5 appears.
It is informed by counsel for A-5 that from his application IA
no.6/26 the only issue remaining was as to non supply of 5 documents
listed at serial no.12, 13, 14, 16 & 18 in his application at page no.24 to
26. It is now submitted that all those documents are claimed to be
unerlied by DoE as specified by the representative of DoE today,
therefore, nothing survives in IA no.6/26 and all other documents have
either been supplied or the position qua them already clarified to the
counsel for A-5. Counsel for A-5 submits that since the documents listed
at above mentioned serial nos. in his application are unrelied, his
application stands satisfied and may be disposed off. IA no.6/26 is
accordingly disposed off.
Turning to IA no.4, 5 12, & 13, preferred by A-1 & A-2, it is
submitted by the counsel for A-1 & A-2 that so far as the documents
relied upon by DoE and as mentioned in the list of relied upon documents
are concerned, all of them have been received by A-1 & A-2. It is
Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
4
submitted that the only issue remaining as per A-1 & A-2 is that there are
some documents relied upon by DoE but the attachment of the said
communications etc. have not been supplied. DoE claims that such
documents are in the list of URDs.
On the other hand counsel for A-1 & A-2 submits that there
are some documents which according to him seems to be neither in the
list of relied documents nor in the list of URDs.
It is made clear that the Prosecuting Agency would be able
to prove only upon the relied documents and they cannot prove any
document which is either not relied or which is not there in either of the
list, in case this matter goes to trial. The prosecution cannot prove a
document which is kept in the unrelied list or which is missing from both
the lists, without seeking prior permission of the Court. Therefore, the
contention of A-1 & A-2 that some documents may be such which
according to them are in neither of the lists, or is not there in the relied
upon list, is taken care of.
Ld. Counsel for A-1 & A-2 submits that since list of URDs
has already been filed and the inspection of URDs is allowed, the 4 IA
nos. 4, 5, 12 & 13 may be disposed off, particularly since this Court has
mentioned above that the documents which are absent in both the lists or
not relied upon, cannot be proved by the prosecution without prior
permission of the Court. Accordingly, IA nos. 4, 5, 12 & 13 of 2026 also
stands disposed off.
Put up this matter now for arguments u/s 223 BNSS qua
proposed A-14, from both the sides, and consideration of IA no.15/2026
and 09/2026, on 29.08.2026 at 10:00 am.
(Dig Vinay Singh)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-09
(MPs/MLAs cases), RACC, New Delhi (m)
Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --