What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
Delhi court refused to take cognizance of a supplementary prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Amanatullah Khan in a money laundering case.
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Thursday refused to take cognizance of a supplementary prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Amanatullah Khan in a money laundering case, citing the absence of mandatory government sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Special Judge Jitendra Singh, while acknowledging “sufficient grounds” to proceed against Khan, emphasized that Section 197 of the CrPC requires prior sanction from the competent government authority before a court can take cognizance of offences committed by public servants in the discharge of their official duties.
ALSO READ: Trump announces bold education reform plan to combat antisemitism in U.S. colleges
The court noted that Khan was accused of corruption in his role as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, involving alleged irregularities in the Board’s recruitment process and property transactions. However, the prosecution failed to provide the requisite sanction to proceed with charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“Since no sanction from the competent authority has been placed on record, cognizance against A-6 (Khan) is declined for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA,” the court stated.
As a result, the court ordered Khan’s immediate release, stating that his continued custody without cognizance would constitute “illegal detention.” Khan had been arrested by the ED on September 2 following the rejection of his anticipatory bail pleas by both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Will deport unelected DC bureaucrats; Elon & I to bring chainsaw, not chisel: Vivek Ramaswamy
The court also addressed allegations against Khan’s wife, Mariyam Siddiqui, whom the ED accused of assisting him in handling the proceeds of the crime. However, no evidence was found to support her culpability, and the supplementary complaint was ruled as lacking sufficient grounds to summon her.
“The case against A-7 (Siddiqui) is based on conjecture, with no direct or circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, she is not summoned in this case,” the court concluded.
This development marks a significant turn in the money laundering investigation initiated by the ED, which stemmed from a case filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against Khan for alleged irregularities during his tenure at the Delhi Waqf Board.
