Case Law Details
Talib Hassan Darvesh Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court)
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of quashing Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons solely based on the absence of specified documents. The case of Talib Hassan Darvesh vs Directorate of Enforcement sparked debates surrounding the powers of ED and the rights of the accused. Let’s delve into the intricate details of the case and the court’s ruling.
The petitioner, Talib Hassan Darvesh, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India along with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The petition sought various reliefs including quashing of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and associated investigations, as well as setting aside of the summons issued by the ED. The petitioner was aggrieved by the continuation of ED investigation based on a complaint filed by the Bank of Baroda alleging bank fraud.
According to the petitioner, the allegations against him were based on a forensic audit conducted by M/s Ernst & Young LLP, which was later declared unreliable by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad. The petitioner argued that there was no evidence to suggest the existence of “proceeds of crime” and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the ED should be quashed.
On the other hand, the ED contended that the investigation was independent and warranted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), as the offences alleged were scheduled offences under the Act. The ED argued that the petitioner cannot be insulated from coercive action at the initial stage and no protective orders should be passed in his favor.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
