A Delhi Court on Tuesday refused to take cognizance of Enforcement Directorate's money laundering complaint in the National Herald case allegedly involving Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Courts pronounced the order. The court held that the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the Gandhis was not maintainable in law, as it was not founded on an FIR relating to a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Congress was quick to react and say that ‘Truth has prevailed'.
“The malafide and illegality of the Modi govt stands fully exposed. Proceedings of ED against the Congress leadership - Smt Sonia Gandhi Ji and Shri Rahul Gandhi Ji, in the Young Indian case have been found completely illegal and malafide by the Honourable Court,” the party said in a post on X.
What did the Court Say?
1-“Since the present prosecution complaint pertaining to the offence money laundering is founded on cognisance and summoning order upon a complaint under Section 200 CrPC filed by a public person, namely Dr Subramanian Swamy, and not upon an FIR, cognizance of the present complaint is impermissible in law,” the Court ruled, as per legal news website Bar and Bench.
‘Not maintainable in the absence of FIR’
The court also said that ED can initiate a money laundering case only based on an FIR with respect an offence mentioned in the schedule of the PMLA.
2- "An investigation and the consequent prosecution complaint pertaining to the offence of money laundering defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 is not maintainable in the absence of a FIR or the offence mentioned in the Schedule to the Act," the Court said as it dismissed the ED complaint against Gandhis.
The Court also said that since Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has now registered an FIR in the matter, it would be premature and imprudent to decide the submissions made by the ED in relation to merits of the allegations.
3- "Cognizance of the offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 is declined. The complaint is dismissed," the Court ordered.
The Court made it clear that since the Delhi Police has registered an FIR and ED has said that the investigation is going on in the case, ED can make further submissions in the case, if they want.
Apart from Gandhis, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise and Sunil Bhandari were also made accused by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
What did the ED say?
The ED alleged that there was laundering of 'proceeds of crime' derived from the alleged fraudulent takeover of the properties of Associated Journals Limited (AJL) – publishers of National Herald, which is worth more than ₹2,000 crore - by a company called Young Indian, Bar and Bench reported.
Gandhis are said to be the majority shareholders in the firm.
The ED has alleged in the case that the shares of AJL were transferred to Young Indian under a criminal conspiracy to illegally obtain the assets of AJL. The value of shares, the immovable properties of AJL and the rent generated from them are the alleged proceeds of crime in the ED case.
However, the Gandhis contended that it is a strange and unprecedented case where allegations of money laundering have been made without the use or projection of the property.
During the course of the hearings, the Congress leaders refuted ED’s allegations that Young Indian was used to usurp AJL’s assets in exchange for a loan. The loan was to make AJL debt-free, they argued.
What is the National Herald Case?
Cognizance of the offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 is declined. The complaint is dismissed.
The National Herald case stems from a private complaint by former Union Minister Subramanian Swamy accusing Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora, Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and Gandhi family-controlled Young Indian of cheating, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of property.
The ED filed a prosecution complaint (chargesheet) against the Gandhis as well as Pitroda and others on April 15 this year.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench and LiveLaw)
