Delhi HC deletes trial court’s observations against ED

The ED/petitioner prayed for setting aside certain comments made by the Special Judge (PC Law), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, in his order dated 05.10.2024.

In his order, the Special Judge stated that though there was enough time to initiate coercive measures against the absconding accused, the ED did not do so and that indicated foul play. The judge said the deputy director deliberately wanted to benefit the accused and asked the director to submit a detailed report.

In the next order, the judge noted that the report was submitted and stated that it reflected poorly on the ED. He observed that the ED was showing complete apathy towards his observations and summoned the Director.

A single court of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that simply because the ED filed the complaint without locating or arresting the accused, that in itself was no reason to assume that the ED did not investigate the case properly.

The Court observed that custody of an accused can be sought even after filing a charge sheet or complaint. He referred to Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI (2007), where the Supreme Court held that the investigating officer did not need to wait for the presence of the absconding accused to file a charge sheet against him.

He also referred to State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 548), where the Supreme Court observed that while the court would be justified in ensuring the presence of State officials who were evidently ignorant of the instructions issued by it, such a practice should not be adopted as a routine. He noted that insisting on the presence of officials in court wastes precious time that could be spent performing their duties.

The Court noted that “Furthermore, it need not be emphasized that adverse comments made by a court against government officials have a serious and detrimental impact on their official record and careers, especially if such comments are unwarranted or unwarranted.”

Thus, the Court set aside the observations made by the Special Judge against the ED and its official.

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate vs. Lakshay Vij and Ors. (CRL.MC 8399/2024 & CRL.MA 32063, CRL.MA 32064/2024)