Delhi Court Slams ED For Faulty PMLA Probe, Says ED Must Introspect Steps To Ensure Expeditious & Fair Investigations

While picking up holes in a “glaring case of faulty investigation” concerning money laundering, a Delhi Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must introspect as to what steps are required to be taken by it for ensuring expeditious and fair investigation in all the cases.

Special Judge (PMLA) Mohd. Farrukh of Rouse Avenue Courts said it may be ensured that there are sufficient checks and balances in place for ED's Investigating Officers to act with expected urgency, diligence and alacrity in respect of every investigation.

“It is also an occasion for the DoE as an Institution that takes pride in being the Premier Investigating Agency of the country to introspect as to what steps are required in the direction to ensure conduction of expeditious and fair investigation in the cases,” the court said.

The judge was dealing with a complaint case filed by ED against five individuals for alleged commission of offences under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. One of the individuals died during the trial.

It was alleged that in 2009, the accused persons conspired among themselves to forge and fabricate eight cheques. Three cheques were encashed and Rs. 1,46,71,000 was credited to Bank Accounts operated by two accused persons, causing wrongful loss to PNB and its account-holders and wrongful gain to themselves.

Further, it was alleged that the accused attempted to encash the remaining five forged and fabricated cheques, however, their attempts could not fructify as the forgery of cheques were detected by Banks.

Pointing out the defects in the ED probe, the court criticised the IO (Assistant Director, ED) for not arraigning two individuals as accused in the case despite ample evidence that they assisted the primary accused in laundering of proceeds of crime. It further said that the ED did not take steps to trace the whereabouts of one of the individuals or take coercive steps against him.

The judge also said that both notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was given to the Banks concerned to produce documents of the persons concerned who opened the accounts and had been operating them.

The court said that the IO failed to conduct any investigation as to who were the persons operating the Bank Accounts and under what circumstances, the tainted money was credited to such accounts.

“Thus IO, Sh. Pankaj Kumar has also failed to investigate the role of the persons/suspects operating the aforesaid Bank Accounts as there is nothing on record to suggest that any interrogation was done by him from the operators of the said Bank Accounts. The aforesaid omissions on the part of IO Pankaj Kumar coupled with non- arraignment of Promod Kumar Pandey and Adhiraj Kumar as accused reflect his lackadaisical and nonchalant conduct towards his duty to conduct fair, honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation,” the court said.

It added: “These proceedings asseverate to be not only a glaring case of faulty investigation but also a case of seemingly an investigation coloured with motivation or an attempt to ensure that certain persons can go scotfree.”

The court observed that there was not only undue, unwarranted and unexplained delay for over 9 to 10 years in presenting the chargesheet or complaint, but also the investigation was faulty.

It added that it is for the competent authority of ED to look into the circumstances and reasons for the delay and defects in the investigation and fix the responsibility of erring officers liable for such lethargy.

The court convicted two accused in the case, and acquitted the other two accused persons. Furthermore, the court summoned the two individuals (for whom it criticised the IO) to face the trial afresh and separately under Section 3 and 4 of PMLA.

Click here to read order