Waqf Board Case: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On ED's Plea Against Release Of AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice on a plea moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against a trial court order which released Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan for lack of requisite sanction in a money laundering case connected to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board recruitment during his chairmanship.

Justice Vikas Mahajan sought response of Khan and his wife- who was not summoned by the trial court on the ground that ED's supplementary prosecution complaint lacked material evidence to show her involvement in any activity connected with proceeds of crime.

Justice Mahajan also directed the special judge to adjourn the trial court proceedings in the money laundering case qua other accused persons to a date after March 21 when ED's plea is listed next before the High Court.

This was after Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appearing for ED urged that though the special judge had declined to take cognizance against Khan and his wife but the trial is proceeding against other accused persons. He thus urged that the trial court proceedings qua other accused be deferred to a date after the date fixed before the High Court.

“Considering the submissions made by the ED, the trial court or special judge is directed to adjourn the trial proceedings to a date after the date fixed before this court. List on March 21,” the Court said.

ED has challenged the impugned order to the extent it declines to take cognizance against Khan for the money laundering offence for lack of sanction. ED's second challenge is regarding the premise that while declining to take cognizance against Khan, the special judge opined that in absence of sanction under Section 197 of CrPC, the custody of Khan shall be illegal and directed him to be released.

ED has also challenged the impugned order on the ground that the special judge declined to take cognizance against Khan's wife on the ground that the supplementary prosecution complaint failed to show that she had mens rea of the scheduled offence.

Hossain submitted that the alleged offence of money laundering committed by Khan was not in discharge of his official duties and thus, sanction was not required in the matter.

He submitted that Khan was the Chairman of Delhi Waqf Board and the allegations against him were pertaining to illegally leasing out waqf properties and illegal appointments in lieu of bribes and abusing his official position which cannot be said to be in discharge of his official duties.

He further submitted that prior to filing of the supplementary prosecution complaint, ED had earlier filed the main complaint on which cognizance was already taken by the trial court.

He said that on filing of the supplementary prosecution complaint, the special judge ought to have issued summons to Khan and his wife in as much as cognizance was to be taken of the offence and not the offender.

Furthermore, Hossain submitted that ED was not granted opportunity to address arguments on the aspect of lack of sanction and that the special judge failed to appreciate that it was not a case of complete absence of sanction.

He said that had the opportunity been given to ED, it would have placed sanction before the special judge.

In November last year, the trial court refused to take cognizance of ED's supplementary chargesheet against Khan under PMLA for the lack of requisite sanction in terms of Section 197 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The judge had added that no sanction from the competent authority or Government was placed on record against Khan.

The case alleges that Amanatullah Khan, while working as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, illegally recruited various people in violation of norms and government guidelines.

ED has alleged that Khan acquired huge proceeds of crime in cash from illegal recruitment of staff in the Delhi Waqf Board and invested the same to purchase immovable assets in the name of his associates.

Khan was arrested by ED on September 02 after searches were conducted by the central probe agency at his residence.

Khan was denied anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench on March 11. Later, the Supreme Court, on April 23, refused to entertain his petition against the verdict.

Title: ED v. Amanatullah Khan