Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently expunged the adverse remarks made by the trial court against the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and its Investigating Officer, in a money laundering case.

The bench, presided over by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, emphasised that adverse remarks made by the court can have a serious impact and said, "Such comments against government servants can seriously harm their official records and careers, particularly if they are unwarranted or unjustified."

"As a sequitur to the above, the observations made by the learned Special Judge in orders dated 05.10.2024 and 19.10.2024, to the extent they have been extracted above, shall stand expunged," said Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.

Notably, on October 5 and October 19, 2024, the special judge of the Rouse Avenue Court issued two orders allegedly against the ED officers in a money laundering case concerning one  Karan Chugh, who is stated to be one of the main conspirators, a kingpin, and is currently “absconding.”

As per the order dated October 5, the trial court had said, "It somewhere appears that the Directorate of Enforcement, the Assistant Director, is well aware of the said legal position and deliberately wants to give the benefit of the same to Karan Chugh."

Subsequently, in the later order dated October 19, it stated, "All this reflects poorly upon the ED. Such a lackadaisical approach on the part of the ED is absolutely unacceptable. ED is showing complete apathy to the observations of this court, and the absence of the IO today is ample proof of the same."

By way of the present appeal, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenged the said orders issued by the trial court. During the hearing, the Special Public Prosecutor Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, submitted that the observations made by the trial court relate to the competence, integrity, and credibility of the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’), who is an Assistant Director in the ED.

While denying the trial court's ‘findings’ that ED didn't take appropriate steps to apprehend the absconding accused, the ED submitted that they not only issued summons to Karan Chugh on multiple occasions but also undertook physical verification of the various available addresses of the accused. The Investigating Officers also issued requisite intimation to the Bureau of Immigration to open a Look-Out-Circular against the accused, per the standard procedures followed by the ED when accused persons are not traceable.

Clarifying the position of the ED, SSP Hossain noted that "the I.O. in the present case functions under the direct supervision of a Deputy Director of the ED, who (latter) is under further oversight of a Joint Director. The Director, ED, has no role in the day-to-day investigation of the matter, and therefore there is no reason why the personal presence of the Director, ED, was contemplated by the learned Special Judge."

Aligning with the ED, the High Court referenced the Apex Court's judgments in Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI and Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement and said that the ED’s decision to file a prosecution complaint without apprehending Chugh does not imply dereliction in the investigation. The court said that custody of an accused can be sought even after filing a chargesheet or complaint.

Furthermore, the court relied on the Apex Court's judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Dr Manoj Kumar Sharma and stated that the practice developed by courts to summon officers at the drop of a hat and exert direct or indirect pressure blurs the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the present application.

Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT V LAKSHAY VIJ AND ORS.