A recent ruling by a Delhi Court has shed light on what it calls a “clear instance of flawed investigation” concerning a money laundering case. The court’s remarks have prompted calls for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to reflect on its investigative practices and ensure fairness and efficiency across all cases.
Special Judge (PMLA) Mohd. Farrukh of Rouse Avenue Courts emphasized the importance of robust checks and balances within the ED to ensure that investigating officers carry out their duties with diligence and urgency in every case.
The judge’s comments came during the handling of a complaint filed by the ED against five individuals accused of offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Notably, one of the accused individuals passed away during the trial.
The allegations revolved around a conspiracy in 2009 to forge and fabricate eight cheques, with three of them successfully encashed, resulting in a significant sum being credited to bank accounts operated by two of the accused. This purportedly caused financial losses to Punjab National Bank (PNB) and its account holders, while benefiting the accused.
The court raised concerns over the ED’s investigation, particularly the failure to prosecute two individuals despite evidence suggesting their involvement in money laundering activities. Additionally, the ED was criticized for not taking adequate measures to locate one of the individuals or initiate coercive actions against them.
Moreover, the court highlighted the ED’s oversight in investigating the identities of individuals operating the bank accounts where the illicit funds were deposited. It noted a lack of interrogation or inquiry into these crucial aspects of the case by the investigating officer.
The court’s ruling emphasized the need for a thorough, unbiased, and diligent investigation process, pointing out that the lapses in the ED’s probe could potentially allow certain individuals to evade accountability.
Furthermore, the court expressed dismay over the significant delay of over nine to ten years in filing charges or complaints in the case, adding to the flaws in the investigation process.
In light of these shortcomings, the court called on the competent authorities within the ED to examine the reasons behind the delays and deficiencies in the investigation. It urged accountability measures to be taken against officers responsible for such lapses.
Ultimately, the court convicted two of the accused individuals while acquitting the others. Additionally, it ordered the summoned appearance of two individuals for a fresh trial, highlighting the importance of rectifying investigative flaws and upholding the principles of justice.
