Delhi court slams ED over ‘delay and defects’ in investigation into money laundering case

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court recently pulled up ED for “defective” investigation in a money laundering case and ordered an assistant director to show cause why penal and disciplinary action should not be recommended against him.

The court of special judge (PMLA) Mohammad Farrukh stated that the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case had failed to conduct a fair and proper investigation and despite having prosecutable material against two persons, they were not made accused.

“IO 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 the IO 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.

Observing 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, the court stated, “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 scot-free.”

The court made the observations while delivering its judgment on ED’s complaint under sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against five accused—Mukesh Jain, Shiv Kumar Bhargava, Benu Jain, Nipun Bansal and Mohd Nauman (who died during trial).

The complaint originated from a CBI case alleging that in the duration of Oct 2008 to March 2009, the five accused along with others had conspired for forging and fabricating eight cheques, out of which three were encashed from a branch of Punjab National Bank (PNB) in Lucknow.

ED alleged that 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.

ED stated that the accused attempted to encash the remaining five forged and fabricated cheques but they failed as the forgery of cheques were detected by the banks.

The court said that there was no explanation why it took around a decade to complete the probe in the money laundering case. It convicted two accused (Jain and Bansal) in the case, and acquitted the other two accused persons. Furthermore, the court summoned the two individuals—Pandey and Adhiraj Kumar— for whom it criticised the IO, to face fresh trial and 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 remarked that his conduct of not probing the bank accounts in which the accused had transferred the proceeds of crime and non-examination of those account holders smacks of “intentional mischief to misdirect the investigation as well as withhold material evidence which would have implicated them”.