New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court's decision that declined to take cognizance of its supplementary chargesheet in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case.
The trial court had also ordered the immediate release of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan from judicial custody, citing a lack of necessary sanctions to proceed with the case.
During the hearing, the Delhi High Court questioned the ED to clarify its position regarding the predicate offense and the issue of sanctions in light of the provisions under PMLA. Court fixed January 13, 2024 for detail hearing in the matter while refused to issues notice in the matter.
Meanwhile the court has also asked the ED to place on record the several order passed by trial court during consideration of said chargesheet.
Also Read |
Delhi HC constitutes committee for improvement of health facilities in prison
The ED argued that the trial court had wrongly released Khan without considering the rigorous requirements of PMLA, particularly Section 45, which deals with bail and other procedural safeguards.
The ED also pointed out that the trial court could have addressed the issue of cognizance during a bail application hearing, but instead chose to release Khan without examining the merits of the charges or whether the necessary sanctions had been obtained.
On November 14, the trial court declined to take cognizance of the supplementary chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case, and ordered his immediate release from judicial custody.
The ED filed supplementary chargesheet on October 29, alleging that Khan laundered money generated through corruption within the Delhi Waqf Board.
Also Read |
Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC order on bail to main accused in Bulandshahr violence Case
While passing its order, the trial court judge stated that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against Khan, but pointed out that there was no sanction to prosecute him.
The case alleges that Khan, during his tenure as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, illegally recruited individuals in violation of norms and government guidelines.
The ED claims that Khan received significant proceeds from these illegal recruitments and used the funds to purchase immovable assets in the names of his associates. (with Agency inputs)
