Srinagar: A court here on Wednesday rejected a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to add fresh charges against National Conference patron and former chief minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah and five others in the alleged multi-crore Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) fund misappropriation case.
The application was dismissed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar, which held that the ED could not seek addition of offences under Sections 411 and 424 of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) in a case being investigated and prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The case pertains to alleged financial irregularities in the JKCA, which is under scrutiny in connection with a money laundering probe. The CBI had earlier filed a chargesheet under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of the RPC.
Subsequently, the ED moved an application seeking addition of offences under Sections 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) and 424 (dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property) RPC. The agency cited liberty granted by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on August 14, 2024, when it quashed the chargesheet filed by the ED against Abdullah and other accused.
However, the CJM noted that the present investigation and prosecution are being conducted by the CBI and that the ED is neither the investigating nor the prosecuting agency in the matter. The court observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the ED had informed the CBI about the alleged commission of offences under Sections 411 and 424 RPC.
The court also recorded that the ED’s Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and subsequent proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) had already been quashed by the High Court in its August 14, 2024 judgment.
Reiterating the settled legal position, the court held that the ED can initiate action only upon the existence of a predicate offence under the PMLA. It termed the existence of such a scheduled offence as the “terminus a quo” — the starting point — for the ED to exercise jurisdiction.
Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court in related matters, the CJM ruled that PMLA authorities cannot proceed merely on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed.
Meanwhile, on the question of charge and discharge, the court found that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC are prima facie made out against all the accused, including Abdullah; Mohammad Saleem Khan, then JKCA general secretary; Ahsan Ahmad Mirza, then treasurer; Manzoor Gazanfar Ali; Bashir Ahmad Misgar, an executive in J&K Bank; and Gulzar Ahmad Beigh.
The court further held that offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 read with Section 109 RPC are prima facie attracted against accused Nos. 4 and 5.
Accordingly, the court directed that charges be framed against the accused under the said provisions. It clarified that addition of charges can be done suo motu at any stage before pronouncement of judgment after recording statements of material witnesses.
The matter has been listed for next week for framing of charges. The court also ordered that after framing of charges, the statements of the approvers — accused Nos. 3 and 6, Manzoor Gazanfar Ali and Gulzar Ahmad Beigh — be recorded as evidence, with appropriate orders to follow if they resile from their earlier stand.
