Prevention of Money Laundering Act,- Sections 44 read with Section 45 – Bail application – Bail Application filed by Applicant, an MLA from Okhla constituency in Delhi, against the Enforcement Directorate (ED)- Appeal Dismissed
AMANATULLAH KHAN VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT BA 795/24 11/03/24 [ SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUSTICE ] [ DELHI HIGH COURT ]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act,- Sections 44 read with Section 45 – Bail application – Bail Application filed by Applicant, an MLA from Okhla constituency in Delhi, against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) – The ED alleges that Applicant laundered money obtained through illegal gratification while he was the Chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) — Applicant denies the allegations – The ED alleges that Applicant accumulated proceeds of crime by giving favors to bidders for leasing out Waqf properties, giving out jobs illegally, and misappropriating DWB funds – Applicant allegedly laundered this money by using it to purchase properties in the names of others –
Applicant argues that the predicate offences for which he is accused of money laundering are the same ones for which he has already been granted bail – He also argues that the ED has not shown that any crime actually occurred – The material brought before this Court at this stage is sufficient to attract bar under Section 45 of PMLA, and it prima facie shows the offence of money laundering being committed by the present accused/applicant – Further, the applicant despite being summoned on six occasions till date, has not joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency – Though a list of documents was also supplied by the agency to the applicant, as an Annexure to the summons, the applicant has failed to submit those documents with the investigating agency – Thus, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the present applicant — Appeal Dismissed
Relevant paras
EROSION OF TRUST: THE FALLOUT OF OBSTRUCTING
JUSTICE
81. In this Court’s opinion, repeated disobedience of summons of the investigating agency is equivalent to Obstruction of investigation – Obstruction of investigation is equivalent to obstruction of administration of justice – Obstruction of administration of justice is equivalent to Eroding trust and confidence in the criminal justice system – and eroding trust and confidence in the criminal justice system will lead to Anarchy and diminished respect for the rule of law.
82. Obstructing justice by not joining investigation is a hindrance in pursuit of justice. It is the right of an investigating agency and the State to pursue vigorously an investigation to the best of their ability,
and further to conduct investigation fairly, independently, and objectively without any ill-will or enmity towards either the accused or the victim. Obstructing administration of justice, thus, thwarts
the lawful authority of an investigating agency and hampers the legitimate investigative process.
83. The law is enacted to serve public interest by promoting accountability of a citizen to the law and in case of accountability of a public servant to the community at large and to the State. The negatively impacting facts on the community at large by holding
such conduct to be legitimate despite disobedience of repeated summons by an investigating agency will send a message to public that non-compliance of repeated summons i.e. almost six
summons without a valid excuse would not invite ire of law. It will also compromise future investigations by the same agencies as the public opinion and message will be formed that, if any person skips
multiple summons of any investigating agency including ED, neither the investigating agency nor the Court of law are able to bring such persons to obey the mandate of law and such a person can be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Conversely, a message may be taken
by the public that such avoidance of multiple summons and non- joining of investigation by any investigating agency is permissible in law.
84. When a person does not join investigation upon receipt of summons of investigating agency which have not been declared illegal or struck down by a Court of law, it means that he has acted in a way so as to prevent the Law Enforcement Agency from collecting information about a suspected offence. Such an attempt and conduct of a person results in delaying the administration of justice, since it
delays investigation of a suspected offence. Refusing to assist, aid, provide relevant information asked for by the Law Enforcement Agency when lawfully asked, failing to appear before the investigating agency, despite being bound in law, such non- appearance thus, amounts to obstructing the Law Enforcement
Agency and the concerned officers from performing their duties to investigate the case which is equivalent to obstructing administration of justice and investigation.
85. In the background of a decision that a Court of lawreaches, lies the public interest analysis, as a Court of law is aware regarding possible impact of its decision and the alleged conduct of the accused in relation to an alleged offence and his reluctance to join investigation on the community at large.
To read the judgment click here
AMANATULLAH KHAN versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT The Law Literates
All Rights Reserved ( Vaibhav Tomar Adv)
