In a significant ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused involved in a money laundering case connected to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, highlighting that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 was not designed to keep individuals incarcerated indefinitely.
A bench led by Justice Abhay Oka criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for maintaining custody of the accused, despite a previous ruling that quashed the prosecution complaint due to the absence of necessary government sanction.
In its landmark decision from November 2024, the Supreme Court established that prior government sanction to prosecute public servants, as stipulated under Section 197(1) of the CrPC, is applicable to complaints under the PMLA as well.
This ruling mandates that the ED must secure the necessary sanction before proceeding with any prosecution complaints.
In this particular case, nearly a year following the ED’s chargesheet submission against the Indian Telecommunications Service Officer, the Delhi High Court overturned the lower court’s cognizance due to the lack of sanction, invoking the Supreme Court’s November 2024 directive.
The court expressed concern over the ED’s failure to promptly inform it of the quashed cognizance order, noting that the agency only acknowledged this during a subsequent hearing when questioned.
The ED’s representative argued that the quashing of the cognizance order was based on the lack of sanction and not on the absence of an offense against the accused. He stated that the agency has since obtained the necessary sanction and has requested the court to take fresh cognizance of the complaint. Additionally, he asserted that the quashing of the previous order did not render the arrest of the accused illegal.
However, the Supreme Court remarked that as of Wednesday, there is no active complaint since the previous cognizance order has been invalidated. The court emphasized that the ED has filed an application to the Special Court for taking cognizance, which will now review the case based on the ED’s assertion of having obtained sanction.
