Supreme Court clarifies the scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in corruption cases: Y. Balaji vs. Karthik Desari & Anr. (2023) INSC 542 (16 May 2023)

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Money Laundering Act in Corruption Cases

Date of the Judgment: 16 May 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 542
Judges: Krishna Murari, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a person be accused of money laundering if they are involved in a corruption case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in cases of corruption. The court’s decision has significant implications for how corruption cases are investigated and prosecuted in India. The bench comprised Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The case involves a series of complaints related to alleged corruption in the recruitment process of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation in Tamil Nadu. In November 2014, the Corporation issued advertisements for various posts. Following this, several complaints were filed alleging that bribes were taken in exchange for jobs.

One Devasagayam filed a complaint on 29.10.2015 alleging that he paid Rs. 2,60,000 to a conductor for a job for his son, but his son did not get the job. Gopi filed a petition on 07.03.2016, claiming that he paid Rs. 2,40,000 to people claiming to be relatives of a Minister for a job. Despite these complaints, the police did not initially include offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

Later, V. Ganesh Kumar filed a complaint on 09.09.2017, alleging that a Minister instructed the collection of money for jobs. K. Arulmani filed another complaint on 13.08.2018, stating that a large sum was collected by the Minister’s PA. Despite these complaints, the police did not include offences under the PC Act. R.B. Arun Kumar filed a petition in 2019 seeking further investigation, alleging suppression of facts. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an Information Report on 29.07.2021, after which summons were issued to the Minister and others.

Timeline

Date	Event
November 2014	Metropolitan Transport Corporation issues job advertisements.
29.10.2015	Devasagayam files a complaint alleging bribery for jobs.
07.03.2016	Gopi files a petition claiming bribery by Minister’s relatives.
20.06.2016	High Court directs investigation beyond lower-level officers.
13.06.2017	Police file a final report against 12 individuals, excluding the Minister.
09.09.2017	V. Ganesh Kumar files a complaint against the Minister and others.
13.08.2018	K. Arulmani files a complaint alleging large sums collected by the Minister’s PA.
27.11.2019	High Court directs further investigation based on R.B. Arun Kumar’s petition.
29.07.2021	Enforcement Directorate (ED) registers an Information Report.
08.03.2021	A final report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is filed against the Minister and others, including offences under the PC Act.
01.09.2022	High Court quashes summons issued by ED.
31.10.2022	High Court orders de novo investigation.
16.05.2023	Supreme Court delivers judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Madras initially directed the police to investigate the complaints of bribery. However, the police filed final reports without including offences under the PC Act. The High Court later ordered further investigation, but a petition for de novo investigation was filed by Devasagayam, who was the original complainant. The High Court allowed this petition, ordering a fresh investigation. The ED also filed petitions seeking copies of documents from the Special Court, which were partly allowed. The High Court also quashed summons issued by the ED, which was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following key legal provisions:

Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):
“Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.”
This section defines the offense of money laundering. The court noted that the section identifies three key elements: (i) person, (ii) process or activity, and (iii) product. The product is defined as the “proceeds of crime”.
Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA:
“proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad;
This section defines “proceeds of crime” as any property derived from a scheduled offense. The court clarified that this includes not only the property directly obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property indirectly derived from it.
Section 2(1)(v) of the PMLA:
“property” means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located;
This section defines “property” broadly to include any asset, whether tangible or intangible. The court noted that this definition is relevant to understanding what can be considered “proceeds of crime.”
The Schedule to the PMLA: This lists the offenses that are considered “scheduled offenses” for the purposes of the PMLA. The court noted that the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) are included in the schedule.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were diverse, with different parties taking varying positions.

Arguments on behalf of the accused:

Lack of Jurisdictional Facts: The accused argued that the ED initiated proceedings without identifying “proceeds of crime” or any activity connected to it. They contended that the mere registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for a scheduled offense is insufficient for the ED to register an Information Report.
No Money Laundering Activity: They argued that the FIRs did not allege any money laundering activity. They claimed that the ED was on a “fishing expedition” to find evidence of money laundering and that they had no material to suspect any such activity.
Incorrect Interpretation of PMLA: The accused claimed that the PMLA was misinterpreted in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929]. They argued that the PMLA should only apply when there is an actual act of money laundering, not just the generation of proceeds of crime. They contended that the ED cannot assume jurisdiction solely on the basis of information that a predicate offence has been committed.
Violation of Constitutional Rights: The accused argued that the ED’s actions violated their constitutional rights, particularly Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. They claimed that the ED was forcing them to give incriminating statements.
Delay in Investigation: The accused argued that there was an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIRs for the predicate offence and the ECIR.

Arguments on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED):

Global Importance of PMLA: The ED argued that money laundering is a serious international crime that affects national economies. They highlighted the global effort to combat money laundering through international conventions and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Correct Interpretation of PMLA: The ED contended that the PMLA was correctly interpreted in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929]. They argued that the PMLA is designed to prevent and punish money laundering, and that the mere acquisition of proceeds of crime is sufficient for the ED to initiate an investigation.
Sufficient Material for Investigation: The ED argued that they had sufficient material to initiate an investigation, including the complaints, FIRs, and final reports filed in the predicate offense. They claimed that the allegations of corruption clearly indicated the generation of “proceeds of crime.”
No Violation of Rights: The ED argued that their actions did not violate the constitutional rights of the accused. They contended that the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA were for the purpose of investigation and that the accused were not being forced to incriminate themselves.

Arguments on behalf of the Complainants:

Need for Fair Investigation: The complainants argued for a fair and impartial investigation into the corruption allegations. They highlighted the fact that the police had not included offences under the PC Act in the initial investigations.
De Novo Investigation Not Justified: They contended that the High Court’s order for a de novo investigation was not justified and that the existing investigation should continue with the inclusion of offences under the PC Act.

The following table shows the sub-submissions categorized by main submissions of all sides pertaining to the issue:

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions (Accused)	Sub-Submissions (ED)	Sub-Submissions (Complainants)
Jurisdictional Prerequisites for ED	No identification of proceeds of crime. No activity connected with proceeds of crime. Mere FIR for scheduled offense insufficient.	FIRs reveal acquisition of illegal gratification. “Acquisition” itself is a money laundering activity. ED has a duty to investigate once information is in public domain.	Need for thorough investigation. Existing investigation to continue with PC Act offenses.
Interpretation of PMLA	PMLA only applies to actual money laundering. ED cannot assume jurisdiction based on predicate offense. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary wrongly decided.	PMLA correctly interpreted in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. Acquisition of proceeds is sufficient for investigation.	Corruption money represents proceeds of crime.
Constitutional Rights	ED actions violate Article 20(3). Forced self-incriminating statements.	Summons for investigation, not self-incrimination.	Fair investigation is a constitutional right.
Delay in Investigation	Unexplained delay in FIR and ECIR registration.	No delay, ED acted when information was available.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

Whether without identifying the proceeds of crime or a property representing the proceeds of crime and without identifying any process or activity connected to proceeds of crime as required by Section 3, which constitute the foundational/ jurisdictional fact, ED can initiate an investigation and issue summons?
Whether in the light of the fact that notice has been ordered in the review petition and a few interim orders have been passed in some proceedings, it is necessary for this Court to tag these appeals along with a review petition or defer the hearing of these matters until a decision is rendered in the review petition and other petitions?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Issue	Court’s Decision	Brief Reasoning
Whether ED can initiate investigation without identifying proceeds of crime	No merit in the argument that ED cannot initiate investigation without identification of proceeds of crime.	The court held that the acquisition of illegal gratification in corruption cases itself constitutes “proceeds of crime” and an activity amounting to money laundering. The court clarified that Section 3 of PMLA identifies three key elements: (i) person, (ii) process or activity, and (iii) product (proceeds of crime). The court noted that in corruption cases, the criminal activity and the generation of proceeds of crime are like Siamese twins.
Whether the matter should be referred to a larger bench or deferred	No need to refer the matter to a larger bench or defer the hearing.	The court noted that a notice in a review petition does not diminish the precedential value of a judgment. The court also noted that the issues raised in the review petition were different from the issues raised by the accused in this case.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities in its judgment:

Cases

Case Name	Court	How it was used	Ratio
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929]	Supreme Court of India	The Court relied on this case to interpret the provisions of the PMLA.	The court upheld the validity of the PMLA and clarified its scope.
Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak [(2013) 5 SCC 762]	Supreme Court of India	The Court referred to this case to explain the meaning of “fresh investigation,” “reinvestigation,” and “de novo investigation.”	The court clarified that the power to order de novo investigation vests only with superior courts and that the same has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases.
P. Dharamaraj vs. Shanmugam [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186]	Supreme Court of India	The Court referred to this case to reject the objections relating to the maintainability of the appeals.	The court rejected the objections relating to maintainability of the appeals and held that the victims had locus standi to challenge the proceedings.
Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited [(2023) 3 SCC 315]	Supreme Court of India	The Court referred to this case to demonstrate that the ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary with respect to confiscation proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA, required further exposition in an appropriate case.	The court expressed an opinion that the ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary with respect to confiscation proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA, required further exposition in an appropriate case and that without such exposition, much scope is left for arbitrary application.
Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Bank of Bihar [AIR 1967 SC 389]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case to contend that an Explanation cannot widen the scope of the main Section.	The court did not accept the contention of the accused that the Explanation to Section 3 of PMLA widened the scope of the main section.
Shauqin Singh vs. Desa Singh [(1970) 3 SCC 881]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case to contend that the existence of a jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent for the exercise of power by ED.	The court did not accept the contention of the accused as the allegations in the FIR pointed out to (i) involvement of persons in criminal activity relating to scheduled offences; (ii) the generation as well as (iii) laundering of the proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 3.
Arun Kumar vs. Union of India [(2007) 1 SCC 732]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case to contend that the existence of a jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent for the exercise of power by ED.	The court did not accept the contention of the accused as the allegations in the FIR pointed out to (i) involvement of persons in criminal activity relating to scheduled offences; (ii) the generation as well as (iii) laundering of the proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 3.
Enforcement Directorate vs. Gagandeep Singh [2022 SCC Online Del 514]	Delhi High Court	The accused relied upon this case to demonstrate that there are inherent contradictions in the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.	The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
Parvathi Kollur vs. State through ED [Crl. Appeal No.1254/2022 dt.16.08.2022]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case to demonstrate that there are inherent contradictions in the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.	The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
Street Tramways vs. London County Council [(1898) AC 375 (378)]	House of Lords	The ED relied upon this case to highlight the doctrine of stare decisis.	The court held that the doctrine of stare decisis gives certainty to law and guides people to mould their affairs in the future.
Redcliffe vs. Ribble Motor Services [(1939) AC 215 (245)]	House of Lords	The ED relied upon this case to highlight the doctrine of stare decisis.	The court held that the doctrine of stare decisis gives certainty to law and guides people to mould their affairs in the future.
Sakshi vs. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 518]	Supreme Court of India	The ED relied upon this case to highlight the doctrine of stare decisis.	The court held that the doctrine of stare decisis gives certainty to law and guides people to mould their affairs in the future.
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 2 SCC 673]	Supreme Court of India	The ED relied upon this case to highlight the doctrine of stare decisis.	The court held that a Bench of lesser coram cannot express disagreement with or question the correctness of the view taken by a Bench of larger coram.
Management of the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur [(1967) 2 SCR 476]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case to contend that a party successful before High Court can always seek to sustain the judgment, on grounds other than those stated in the impugned order.	The court accepted the contention of the accused.
Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case for questioning the locus standi of the appellants.	The court held that the objections relating to maintainability were rejected by this Court in the very same proceedings in the first round. Therefore, the accused cannot raise the question of locus again and again.
Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 653]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case for questioning the locus standi of the appellants.	The court held that the objections relating to maintainability were rejected by this Court in the very same proceedings in the first round. Therefore, the accused cannot raise the question of locus again and again.
Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [(2000) 8 SCC 395]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case to contend that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings fall through.	The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam [(2001) 10 SCC 191]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case to contend that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings fall through.	The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [(2011) 14 SCC 770]	Supreme Court of India	The accused relied upon this case to contend that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings fall through.	The court did not accept the contention of the accused.

Statutes

Statute	Section	Brief on the Provision
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002	Section 3	Defines the offense of money laundering.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002	Section 2(1)(u)	Defines “proceeds of crime”.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002	Section 2(1)(v)	Defines “property”.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988	Sections 7 and 13	Relating to offences of taking bribe by a public servant.
Indian Penal Code, 1860	Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, and 471	Relating to criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery etc.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973	Section 173	Relating to report of police officer on completion of investigation.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973	Section 482	Relating to inherent powers of High Court.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872	Section 65B	Relating to admissibility of electronic records.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s order for a de novo investigation and the quashing of summons issued by the ED. The court held that the acquisition of illegal gratification in corruption cases itself constitutes “proceeds of crime” and an activity amounting to money laundering. The court clarified that Section 3 of PMLA identifies three key elements: (i) person, (ii) process or activity, and (iii) product (proceeds of crime). The court noted that in corruption cases, the criminal activity and the generation of proceeds of crime are like Siamese twins.

The court also rejected the contention that the ED cannot initiate an investigation without identifying the proceeds of crime or a property representing the proceeds of crime. The court held that the allegations in the FIRs pointed out the involvement of persons in criminal activity relating to scheduled offenses, the generation of proceeds of crime, and the laundering of those proceeds.

The court also rejected the contention that the matter should be referred to a larger bench or deferred. The court noted that a notice in a review petition does not diminish the precedential value of a judgment. The court also noted that the issues raised in the review petition were different from the issues raised by the accused in this case.

The court dismissed the appeal challenging the order permitting ED to have inspection of the records of the Trial Court. The court also dismissed the appeal challenging the orders of the High Court relating to extension of time for completion of investigation.

The court also dismissed the contempt petitions and the application for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team.

The following table demonstrates as to how each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court:

Submission	How it was treated by the Court
ED cannot initiate investigation without identification of proceeds of crime.	Rejected. The court held that the acquisition of illegal gratification itself constitutes proceeds of crime.
PMLA only applies to actual money laundering.	Rejected. The court held that the acquisition of proceeds of crime itself constitutes money laundering.
ED actions violate Article 20(3).	Rejected. The court held that the summons were for investigation, not self-incrimination.
There was an unexplained delay in the investigation.	Rejected. The court held that there was no delay and the ED acted when the information was available.
The matter should be referred to a larger bench or deferred.	Rejected. The court held that the review petition does not diminish the precedential value of the judgment.

The following table demonstrates as to how each authority was viewed by the Court:

Authority	How it was used by the Court
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929]	Cited and followed to interpret the provisions of the PMLA.
Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak [(2013) 5 SCC 762]	Cited to explain the meaning of “fresh investigation,” “reinvestigation,” and “de novo investigation.”
P. Dharamaraj vs. Shanmugam [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1186]	Cited to reject the objections relating to the maintainability of the appeals.
Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited [(2023) 3 SCC 315]	Cited to demonstrate that the ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary with respect to confiscation proceedings under Section 8 of the PMLA, required further exposition in an appropriate case.
Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Bank of Bihar [AIR 1967 SC 389]	Cited by the accused to contend that an Explanation cannot widen the scope of the main Section. The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
Shauqin Singh vs. Desa Singh [(1970) 3 SCC 881]	Cited by the accused to contend that the existence of a jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent for the exercise of power by ED. The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
Arun Kumar vs. Union of India [(2007) 1 SCC 732]	Cited by the accused to contend that the existence of a jurisdictional fact is a condition precedent for the exercise of power by ED. The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
Enforcement Directorate vs. Gagandeep Singh [2022 SCC Online Del 514]	Cited by the accused to demonstrate that there are inherent contradictions in the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
Parvathi Kollur vs. State through ED [Crl. Appeal No.1254/2022 dt.16.08.2022]	Cited by the accused to demonstrate that there are inherent contradictions in the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
Street Tramways vs. London County Council [(1898) AC 375 (378)]	Cited by the ED to highlight the doctrine of stare decisis.
Redcliffe vs. Ribble Motor Services [(1939) AC 215 (245)]	Cited by the ED to highlight the doctrine of stare decisis.
Sakshi vs. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 518]	Cited by the ED to highlight the doctrine of stare decisis.
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 2 SCC 673]	Cited by the ED to highlight the doctrine of stare decisis.
Management of the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur [(1967) 2 SCR 476]	Cited by the accused to contend that a party successful before High Court can always seek to sustain the judgment, on grounds other than those stated in the impugned order. The court accepted the contention of the accused.
Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305]	Cited by the accused for questioning the locus standi of the appellants. The court held that the objections relating to maintainability were rejected by this Court in the very same proceedings in the first round. Therefore, the accused cannot raise the question of locus again and again.
Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 653]	Cited by the accused for questioning the locus standi of the appellants. The court held that the objections relating to maintainability were rejected by this Court in the very same proceedings in the first round. Therefore, the accused cannot raise the question of locus again and again.
Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [(2000) 8 SCC 395]	Cited by the accused to contend that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings fall through. The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam [(2001) 10 SCC 191]	Cited by the accused to contend that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings fall through. The court did not accept the contention of the accused.
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [(2011) 14 SCC 770]	Cited by the accused to contend that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings fall through. The court did not accept the contention of the accused.

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment has significant implications for the enforcement of the PMLA in corruption cases.

Broader Scope of PMLA: The judgment clarifies that the PMLA can be applied to corruption cases from the moment “proceeds of crime” are generated. This means that the ED can initiate investigations as soon as there is an indication of corruption, even if the money has not been laundered through complex transactions.
Increased Powers of ED: The judgment strengthens the powers of the ED in investigating corruption cases. The ED can now initiate investigations based on FIRs for scheduled offenses under the PC Act, without having to wait for evidence of money laundering.
Deterrent Effect: The judgment is likely to have a deterrent effect on corruption. Public officials and others involved in corruption will now be more aware of the possibility of facing money laundering charges under the PMLA.
Impact on Investigations: The judgment may lead to more thorough and comprehensive investigations into corruption cases. The ED will now have a greater role to play in these investigations, alongside other agencies.
Potential for Abuse: While the judgment is intended to combat corruption, there is a potential for abuse of power by the ED. It is important that the ED exercises its powers responsibly and does not harass innocent individuals.
Need for Safeguards: The judgment highlights the need for safeguards to protect the rights of the accused. It is important that the ED follows due process and respects the constitutional rights of individuals under investigation.

Flowchart of the Process

Complaint filed alleging corruption

↓

FIR registered under scheduled offenses

↓

ED registers Information Report

↓

Investigation by ED

↓

Summons issued to accused

↓

Adjudication and prosecution

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Y. Balaji vs. Karthik Desari & Anr. (2023) INSC 542 is a significant development in the legal framework for combating corruption in India. The judgment clarifies the scope of the PMLA and strengthens the powers of the ED in investigating corruption cases. The judgment is likely to have a far-reaching impact on how corruption is investigated and prosecuted in India. However, it is important to ensure that the powers of the ED are exercised responsibly and that the rights of the accused are protected.

Source: Y. Balaji vs. Karthik Desari & Anr.