The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to restrain Gandhi family controlled Associated Journals Limited (AJL) from seeking release of properties, including Herald House at ITO attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal in the National Herald case.
The trial court had refused to take cognisance of ED’s charge sheet, concluding that a prosecution complaint filed by an authorised officer under the PMLA, cannot rest on a scheduled offence arising from a private complaint and must be based on an offence registered by a law enforcement agency—either through a police FIR or a complaint by a person authorised to investigate the scheduled offence. The court was hearing ED’s petition against trial court’s December 16 order.
The law officer contended that the trial court’s December 16 order refusing to take cognisance of the agency’s charge sheet was being relied upon to seek the release of properties, attached by the agency.
“I am not passing any order,” justice Datta said, while fixing November 2 as the next date of hearing.
In its reply filed on September 18, senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have opposed before the Delhi high court Enforcement Directorate’s petition against the trial court’s refusal to take cognisance of its charge sheet in the National Herald case, contending that the case is the only instance in the country where the agency has proceeded on the basis of a private complaint, using it as the foundation for initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Following this ED had moved the high court arguing that the special judge failed to appreciate that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint constituting the scheduled offence stands on a much higher footing. The affidavit added that ED is embarking upon an endeavour to find support from general and convenient self-invented legal premises.
The court’s 117-page order stated that the ED’s case reflected a unilateral overreach of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and “an ill-advised out-pacing of the scheme of the PMLA itself”. The order, ED asserted, has given a “hall pass” to a category of money launderers only on the ground that the scheduled offence is reported by a private individual through a complaint to a magistrate. The leaders asserted that the terms “private complaint” or “complaint by a public person/citizen” do not find mention in the PMLA and a private complaint, under no circumstances, can serve as a foundational instrument for registration of an ECIR under the Act, initiation of investigation and launching of prosecution.
