Supreme Court Stays ED Probe Against Chhattisgarh Government Officers In Alleged Liquor Scam Case
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, asked the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to not proceed with investigation against Yash Tuteja, in relation to the Chhattisgarh liquor scam. Yash is the son of Anil Tuteja, IAS officer, whom the ED has identified as a kingpin of the syndicate for illegal supply of liquor in Chhattisgarh. The Apex Court had previously directed the agency to refrain from taking...
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, asked the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to not proceed with investigation against Yash Tuteja, in relation to the Chhattisgarh liquor scam. Yash is the son of Anil Tuteja, IAS officer, whom the ED has identified as a kingpin of the syndicate for illegal supply of liquor in Chhattisgarh. The Apex Court had previously directed the agency to refrain from taking any coercive steps against Yash Tuteja.
The Court recorded in the order, “Apart from the order already passed of no coercive action the concerned respondent authorities must hold their hands in all manner.”
On Tuesday, while passing the order staying probe, the Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia indicated that the same order would apply to the 35 Government officers being proceeded against in relation to the same matter.
Senior Advocate, Kapil Sibal apprised the Bench that Government officers were being asked to give details of their properties even though there exists no predicate offence. As the Bench was recording the order, Sibal requested the Bench to extend the relief to the 35 Government officers. Justice Kaul responded, “We have said to hold their (ED’s) hands in all manner, what else do you want me to say”.
Senior Advocate, Abhishek Manu Sighvi also supported Sibal’s submission that there was no predicate offence in the case. He averred, “How can they investigate without a predicate offence”. Providing a brief background of the case, Singhvi submitted that the complaint was filed ‘purely under Income Tax Act’, which is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA. Moreover, the competent court has not taken cognisance of the offence and returned the complaint.
Justice Kaul asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), V. Raju, appearing on behalf of the ED “What will happen if there is no predicate offence”. He added, “If you see the order issuing notice allegation is under Income Tax Act. So far as predicate offence is concerned cognisance has not been taken by the competent court.”
The ASG responded by submitting that a predicate offence can exist if there is an FIR even though cognisance has not yet been taken by the competent court. He informed the Bench that in the present case the competent court has not refused cognisance; it has returned the complaint on the issue of jurisdiction.
Justice Kaul asked the ASG, what should be done in the meanwhile when the challenge to the order of the competent court is pending before the Appellate Court without any order being passed in favour of the ED.
“What should be done in the meanwhile. The Court which you thought had jurisdiction to deal with it you moved it. The Court said that we are not taking cognisance for these reasons. You move appellate court challenging the same. No favourable order has been passed yet. What scenario will prevail in the meanwhile?”, asked the judge.
The ASG emphasised that the competent court did not say that there was no predicate offence and under these circumstances the proceedings cannot be quashed.
Recalling that the Court had already granted relief to Tuteja, Justice Kaul said, “No coercive step in Yash Tuteja’s matter is already there”,
Singhvi apprised the judge that the investigation is still going on. He submitted, “They are calling us every day, they are attaching properties, issuing summons and notices to us”.
Justice Kaul told the ASG, “It (investigation) may not be quashed today but certainly you cannot proceed with it (investigation).”
However, at the end, the Bench clarified that if the competent court’s order returning the complaint is stayed by the Appellate Court the investigating agency can approach the Apex Court for relief.
[Case Title: Yash Tuteja And Anr. v. Union of India And Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023]