Delhi High Court reprimands ED in money laundering case, know what the court said?
Enforcement Directorate (ED) has received a rebuke from the Delhi High Court in a case related to money laundering. Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court has issued a notice to IO Pankaj Kumar asking him to explain that disciplinary and punitive action will be taken against him for faulty investigation. Why not recommend it?
The order was given by Special PMLA Court Judge Mohammad Farooq. He said that in this investigation it seems that an attempt has been made to ensure that some people are saved. The court believes that the mistake was made deliberately, so that the guilty person could go free. The court said that this is an opportunity for the ED to introspect as to what steps should be taken to ensure a fair investigation.
Two accused found guilty, two freed
Actually, the court was considering a money laundering case against 4 accused on the basis of the CBI complaint, in which it was alleged that they had conspired to forge and forge cheques. The court concluded that the ED had proved that the two accused had committed the crime of money-laundering. At the same time, ED failed to present evidence against two other accused, due to which both were released.
What did the court say on the ED investigation?
The court said that IO Pankaj Kumar has failed to conduct a fair and proper investigation in the present case. Despite material suitable for prosecution coming on record during the investigation against two persons, they were not made accused. According to the court, the IO did not check the bank accounts of one of the accused. Not investigating the operators concerned smacks of deliberate mischief to misdirect the investigation as well as concealment of physical evidence. The court has called it a clear case of faulty investigation. The ED further said that the investigation is an attempt to ensure that some persons remain innocent.
Guilty person acquitted
The court said that it has been established that IO Pankaj Kumar has prima facie committed mistakes, which resulted in improper or faulty investigation. This has adversely affected the prosecution’s case, as the guilty persons were acquitted. The omissions and acts of the investigating officer were willful and resulted from avoidable circumstances.
10 year delay in completing the investigation
The court said that no explanation has been given for the inordinate delay in completing the investigation. It is expected from the investigating agencies that the investigation be completed without unnecessary delay, so that evidence is not destroyed during the lengthy investigation. The court said
The court said that there is nothing on record to explain the circumstances under which the investigation took approximately 9 to 10 years to complete.
Questions raised on delays and shortcomings
Describing the investigation as flawed, the court said that it is the duty of the competent authority of DOE to look into the circumstances and reasons for the delay and lapses in the investigation and to fix the responsibility of the concerned officers responsible for such tardiness.
