A Delhi court has strongly criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its handling of a money laundering case, where a person initially cited as a witness was later made an accused. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Dheeraj Mor of the Patiala House Court expressed concern over the inconsistency, calling the ED’s actions “disturbing.”
The case involves Mangelal Sunil Agarwal, who was first listed as a witness by the initial investigating officer (IO) in a money laundering case. However, a subsequent officer, who replaced the original IO, later arrested Agarwal and made him an accused.
Judge Mor highlighted that such discrepancies in the investigation process undermine the objectivity of the investigation. The court stressed that investigations should not be subject to the subjective interpretations of individual officers, as this could lead to arbitrary actions.
In response, the court ordered the Director of the ED to conduct an inquiry into the actions of both investigating officers. The court also directed the ED to submit a report explaining the procedures followed by its officers when deciding to arrest someone and detailing how senior officials oversee such decisions.
The court emphasized the need for an investigation into why two officers, presented with the same evidence, arrived at completely opposite conclusions. The inquiry report, which is to be submitted within a month, should determine whether either officer failed in their duties and what actions, if any, will be taken against the responsible official. If both officers’ actions are found justifiable, the court requested an explanation to reconcile this conflicting situation.
This order was issued as the court granted bail to Agarwal, who is accused of siphoning ₹18.8 crore. The ED had initially filed a chargesheet in October 2022, listing Agarwal as a witness. However, in August 2023, the agency submitted a second chargesheet naming him as an accused.
Judge Mor noted that the ED’s actions were troubling, as both officers reviewed the same evidence but arrived at opposite conclusions. The court reasoned that one of the officers was either wrongfully influenced or incompetent in assessing the case.
The court further observed that when it first reviewed the chargesheet, there was no evidence implicating Agarwal. By arresting him on the same evidence, the ED appeared to be overstepping its authority and attempting to justify the arrest by searching for additional evidence post-arrest, which the court criticized as a flawed approach.
The court reiterated that while investigating officers have the discretion to arrest individuals, this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It expressed concern that arresting someone based on the same evidence that the court had previously reviewed without finding any grounds for accusation amounts to an overreach of power.
As a result, the court ordered the ED Director to inform whether the agency follows any standard operating procedure (SOP) or regulation when arresting individuals.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Simon Benjamin represented the ED, while advocates Vaibhav Suri and Saud Khan represented Mangelal Sunil Agarwal.
