A Delhi court has reprimanded the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for conducting a sloppy investigation and highlighted lapses by its investigative officer (IO) in the money-laundering case involving the defrauding of Punjab National Bank (PNB) of ₹1,46,71,000.

The court highlighted three significant lapses by the federal probe agency: First, despite the availability of evidence, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) neglected to name two individuals as accused in the case. Consequently, the court has summoned these individuals, prompting a fresh trial against them. Second, the court observed that the investigative officer (IO) failed to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the money trail. Third, the court acknowledged the unjustified delay of nine years before the charge sheet was filed in 2018, raising concerns about the timeliness and efficiency of the investigation.

“The is not only undue, unwarranted and unexplained delay for over nine to 10 years in presenting the charge sheet or complaint, but also, the investigation is faulty. Accordingly, it is for the competent authority of DoE to look into the circumstances and reasons for the delay and defects in the investigation and fix the responsibility of the officers concerned liable for such lethargy,” said Special Judge Mohd. Farrukh, in the order, pronounced on March 30 but made available on Monday.

The court was reviewing a case initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on December 14, 2009, following a complaint lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on April 6, 2009. The case pertained to certain bank officials and other individuals accused of defrauding Punjab National Bank (PNB). The allegation stated that the accused colluded and fabricated eight cheques in 2009, out of which three were cashed, resulting in ₹1,46,71,000 being credited to the accounts of two accused individuals. This fraudulent activity caused financial losses to both the bank and its account holders. However, the attempts to cash the remaining five cheques were unsuccessful.

The court, while passing the judgment convicting two accused in the case -- Mukesh Jain and Nipun Bansal -- observed that the IO Pankaj Kumar had not arraigned two others as accused in the case though they were found to be involved in money laundering.

The court observed that although statements were recorded from an individual named Pramod Kumar Pandey, who allegedly aided Jain in laundering proceeds of crime, he was classified as a witness rather than an accomplice. Additionally, despite indicating in the charge sheet that efforts to locate an individual named Adhiraj Kumar during the investigation were unsuccessful, no measures were taken to trace him or initiate coercive actions against him.

The court further highlighted that the investigative officer (IO) failed to conduct a comprehensive investigation into tracing the money trail of the proceeds of crime. It remarked that the IO merely paid "lip service" to the legal requirement of conducting a fair and thorough investigation.

“The omissions on the part of IO Pankaj Kumar coupled with non-arraignment of Promod Kumar Pandey and Adhiraj Kumar as accused reflect his lackadaisical and nonchalant conduct towards his duty to conduct fair, honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation,” the judge said.

The court recommended that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) should implement adequate checks and balances to ensure that investigative officers (IOs) carry out their duties with the requisite urgency, diligence, and promptness in all investigations.

“It is also an occasion for the DoE as an institution which takes pride in being the premier investigating agency of the country to introspect as to what steps are required in the direction to ensure conduction of expeditious and fair investigation in the cases,” the judge said in the order.

The court has served notice to the investigative officer (IO), requiring an explanation as to why penal and disciplinary actions should not be recommended against him. Additionally, it has summoned Pandey and Kumar under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, enabling them to face separate trials for their alleged involvement in the case.

The court acquitted two accused individuals, Shiv Kumar Bhargava and Benu Jain, after noting that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charge of money laundering against them.

Image source: X