AgustaWestland Charge-Sheet Leak: ED's Version Contradictory, Not Worthy Of Reliance: Spl CBI Court [Read Order]

Special CBI Judge Arvind Kumar found the ED's version about the leakage of the charge sheet "not inspiring any confidence and is not worthy of reliance".

The court said this while hearing the application filed by the counsel of middleman Christian James Michel, who objected to the manner in which the contents of a supplementary charge sheet filed by ED on April 4, 2019, were published in the media even as the accused was not given a copy of the same.

While Michel said the ED was interested in media trial and leaked the contents of the charge sheet on the behest of the government to sensationalize the matter, the ED in its status report said there has been no leakage from its end and claimed that the leak was most likely from an extra copy of the charge sheet left with the Ahlmad (record keeper) of the court by one Karun Bansal, AEO (Assistant Enforcement Officer), ED.

Bansal also filed an affidavit stating the same.

While holding that the status report filed by ED was not worthy of reliance and that there was no additional copy of the charge sheet ever left by Bansal with the ED, the court directed the ED to ensure against repeat of such an incident.

The probe agency had in its status report said that on April 4, when it filed the fourth supplementary charge sheet, Bansal got the documents verified with the Ahlmad of the court on the orders of the court. For the purpose of verification, a copy of the complaint was given to the Ahlmad and was retained by him while Bansal left the court at 2:40 PM and on the same day, the ED learnt that the prosecution complaint is being circulated in the media.

On the other hand, the Ahlmad filed his report stating that the ED had filed only the original charge sheet along with documents from serial number 1 to 42 running into 4,556 pages and no additional copy was ever given to him.

No copy ever left with Ahlmad

Contrary to the claims of the ED that it had left a copy of the supplementary charge sheet with the Ahlmad, the judge noted that, "there is nothing in the order dated April 4, 2019 that documents were to be verified by the Ahlmad. There is no mention of filing of any additional copy of the 4th supplementary complaint by the Enforcement Directorate…The ED has not stated about filing of any additional copy in court by way of separate application or by orally mentioning and has alleged these facts only on April 11, 2019 after the accused has filed present application…There is no reason for the ED to leave a copy of the supplementary complaint with the Ahlmad."

"However, even if version of AEO Karun Bansal is believed, it was totally uncalled for and negligent on part of the ED official to leave a copy with the Ahlmad. The allegation made by ED, on face of it, appears incorrect. The version of ED is not inspiring any confidence and is not worthy of reliance," said the court.

The judge pointed another contradiction in the ED's version as the agency stated in its status report that the leaked complaint reflects the same are photographs of the original complaint while in the affidavit filed by Bansal, its case is that the contents are leaked from the copy retained by the Ahlmad.

"The status report filed by the ED is thus not worthy of reliance. This court has no hesitation in holding that no additional copy of the fourth supplementary complaint was filed by ED with the Ahlmad. Here, it also needs to be recorded that it has never been a practice in the court to retain additional copy of the complaint without mentioning it in the order sheet".

Deciding not to go further into the issue of media gaining access to the fourth supplementary charge sheet and whether the act of giving the same to the media was deliberate or negligence, the court directed the Director of ED "to take necessary steps to ensure that no such incident is repeated in future in any manner whatsoever".

The judge also held that there was no contempt committed in the case.

Meanwhile, the court also rubbished Michel's contention that the ED had "passed some documents to the court secretly".

The judge said on April 6, the ED had shown some documents to the court which were a part of the case diary of the on-going investigation and were, therefore, ordered to be kept in a sealed cover to be returned to the probe agency later and that it was not supposed to give its copy to the accused.

The ED had filed a criminal complaint in November 2014 in the Rs 3,600-crore scam. The first supplementary complaint was filed in June 2016 wherein James was named as an accused. He was extradited to India from Dubai in December 2018. The second, third and fourth supplementary charge sheets were filed in years 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively.

The charge sheet under challenge was the latest filed on April 4, 2019. The court had issued summons to the newly-added accused persons and supplied a copy of the charge sheet to James' counsel on April 6.

On the argument that cognizance of the offences was not taken by the court and matter published in media affecting the rights of the accused, the court noted, "…cognizance had already been taken on December 20, 2014. The contention of the counsel of the accused that cognizance was not taken of the offences till April 4, 2019, is totally misplaced. Further, copies of said supplementary complaints have to be supplied to all the other accused persons and it cannot be said to be a confidential document".

Advocates Sriram Parakkat, Vishnu Shankar, Aljo Joseph appeared for Michel

Read the Order Here