ED Can’t Be Expected To Work As Magicians, Will Take Time To Investigate And Reach Truth: Delhi High Court In Sanjay Singh Case
While dismissing Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh’s plea challenging his arrest and remand in money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate cannot be expected to work as magicians and that it will take time to investigate a case and reach to the truth. “Even if the investigating agency/ED is premier investigating agency, they cannot be expected to...
While dismissing Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh’s plea challenging his arrest and remand in money laundering case, the Delhi High Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate cannot be expected to work as magicians and that it will take time to investigate a case and reach to the truth.
“Even if the investigating agency/ED is premier investigating agency, they cannot be expected to work as magicians and even if with the aid of technology and best investigative skills at their best are to be applied, it will still take time to investigate the case and try to reach the truth,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The court observed that while dealing with an offence where advance kickbacks have been alleged to be paid in cash, it can hardly be expected that the accused persons in the advanced age of technology will leave any money trail which can be found in the first blush.
Justice Sharma also said that it is for the investigating agency to probe and find out the truth or evidence for which it is entitled to and has to be given fair and adequate opportunity of investigation.
On Singh’s contention that he was arrested due to political vendetta, the court said that it will not insinuate or impute any political motives to ED in absence of any material on record. It added that it does not consider it a prima facie case of no evidence at all.
Observing that courts examine cases from the prism of enactments of law and judicial precedents and does not get swayed by a political affiliation nor reads the law coloured with the lens of political biases, the court said:
“This Court without there being any evidence on record would desist from imputing political affiliations or objectives to a premier investigating agency as the reputation of the premier investigating agency of a country has direct relation to the reputation of a country being fair entity itself.”
Singh is presently in judicial custody. The AAP leader was arrested on October 4 by the Enforcement Directorate. This was after searches were conducted at his residence in the national capital.
Singh is the third AAP leader to be arrested in the matter. The raids were conducted by ED at Singh’s residence after he was named by businessman Dinesh Arora, accused in the case, who later turned approver in both ED and CBI cases.
Upholding Singh’s arrest and ED remand, Justice Sharma observed that the AAP leader is an influential public figure and can influence witnesses as well as evidence, part of which is yet to be collected. The court said that the investigation is to be carried out to know the truth for the benefit of the State and its citizens.
“In this regard, this Court observes that any investigating agency before arresting a person has to follow rules of criminal jurisprudence and convince itself about sufficiency of material, and in the present case of money laundering, they had to have sufficient material in their possession to arrest the present accused to produce him before the Sessions Court for seeking his custodial interrogation and for the purpose of conducting proper investigation. Therefore, the same cannot be read against them but rather in their favour that they had waited to collect sufficient material against the petitioner before arresting him, the court said.
It added that Singh himself was aware about the evidence against him, i.e. approver’s statement, being in possession of ED, and thus, it cannot be pleaded that there was no evidence against him till he was arrested abruptly.
“There is nothing to suggest at this stage that the law enforcement agency by lawless means, to achieve their pre-decided end, had extracted a false statement from the approver. The statement of an approver at this stage even in a case of public figure has to stand on equal footing as in the case of any other accused in a criminal case,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Ms. Ankita M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Kanishk Raj, Mr. Kaustabh Khanna, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Mr. Arveen Sehhon and Ms. Nikita Gill, Advocates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED along with Mr. Vivek Gurnani and Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Advocates
Title: SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1005