National Herald Case: Court rejects ED’s plea against Rahul, Sonia
A Delhi court on Tuesday refused to take cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald case, holding that the prosecution was not maintainable in law at this stage.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts ruled that the complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could not be entertained as it was not founded on a first information report (FIR) relating to a scheduled offence.
The court noted that the ED’s money laundering proceedings were based on a cognisance and summoning order passed on a private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Subramanian Swamy, and not on an FIR.
It observed that an FIR was a mandatory requirement for initiating proceedings under the PMLA.
While pronouncing the order, the judge recorded that the economic offences wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police had already registered an FIR in the matter. In view of this, the court held that it would be premature to examine the ED’s arguments on merits at this stage.
The court ruled that since the prosecution complaint for the offence of money laundering was founded on a summoning order arising out of a private complaint, and not on an FIR relating to a scheduled offence, taking cognisance of the complaint was impermissible in law.
It further held that an investigation and prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA could not be sustained in the absence of such an FIR, leading to the dismissal of the ED’s complaint.
“In view of the ongoing investigation by the ED in consequence of the FIR registered by the EOW, Delhi, on October 3, it is now premature and imprudent for the court to decide the submissions made by the ED as well as the proposed accused in relation to the merits of the allegations,” read the court order.
It said cognisance of the offence defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4, read with Section 70 of the PMLA in the present complaint was declined.
The court left it open to the agency to place further submissions on record in accordance with law, noting that the investigation was stated to be ongoing.