Ex-IAS officer Anil Tuteja has been arrested in the case.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Friday flagged “disturbing features” in the arrest of former IAS officer Anil Tuteja by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case related to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih termed the facts of the case as “glaring” and recorded the “disturbing features” in the arrest of the former bureaucrat on April 20.
“The petitioner (Anil Tuteja) on April 20, 2024, at around 4.30 pm was sitting in the ACB office at Raipur. Firstly, he was served summons directing him to appear before ED at 12 am. Thereafter, another summon was served while he was in the office of ACB calling upon him to appear before ED at 5.30 pm. Thereafter, he was taken to the office of ED in a van brought by the ED and was interrogated throughout the night and arrested at 4 am. The facts are glaring,” the bench underlined in its order.
It allowed senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and other lawyers appearing for Tuteja to withdraw his appeal and granted him liberty to approach the trial court for bail.
“The SLPs are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to apply for bail and if any such application are made considering the peculiar facts of the case, the special court concerned will give necessary priority in disposal of the bail application,” directed the bench.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, informed the bench that the agency had to take remedial measures to ensure such incidents were avoided and there was a press release to this effect issued on October 29, 2024.
During the hearing, Singhvi said the top court previously quashed the money laundering case registered by the ED on April 8, 2024.
He contended the ED, three days later, registered a new ECIR (complaint) based on the same set of facts and material saying the agency couldn’t have new information in such a short time.
Justice Oka asked if the ED could rely on the same material from the first ECIR, which had been quashed, to justify the registration of a second case.
Raju submitted during the investigation into the second ECIR, all relevant documents, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, were obtained from the investigating officer of the first ECIR.
He argued that the material collected remained on record and could form the basis of further proceedings.
Justice Oka noted the quashing of the first ECIR was based on the absence of a predicate offence.
The court said while it was not going into the legality of the investigation, it wanted to see if the arrest was illegal.
Justice Oka then asked Singhvi, whether he wanted a detailed finding on the issue, saying it might have a bearing on the bail, if the court recorded its reasoning.
Singhvi subsequently sought permission to withdraw the petition with a liberty to apply for bail in the matter.
On December 5, the top court expressed its displeasure over the ED hastening to arrest Tuteja in the case.
“It is deplorable. How can you arrest a person in the middle of the night? What is this happening, was it so urgent. You could have called him the next day. He was not some terrorist who would go in with bombs,” the bench said then.
Raju then tried to justify the agency’s action saying there was an apprehension that Tuteja would go underground as he was avoiding its notices.
The bench then told the ED to be prepared for answering the question on the maintainability of the fresh case filed by the agency on April 11 after the court set aside the entire ED proceedings against Tuteja and other accused on April 8, as the predicate offence was based on income tax proceedings, which was not a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The ED has claimed the fresh case was based on the FIR registered by the Chhattisgarh police and on different charges and evidence.
The agency claimed illegal profits worth Rs 2,000 crore were earned by a syndicate involving politicians, bureaucrats and private individuals during the period 2019-23 of which Tuteja was an integral part.
It said this money allegedly came through bribes collected from distillers and unaccounted sale of country liquor by state-run liquor vends.
On April 8, the top court quashed the money laundering case against Tuteja and his son Yash in the alleged Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam in Chhattisgarh, saying there were no proceeds of crime.
The complaint was quashed after noting that since no ex-facie scheduled offence (main offence) existed against them, no offence under the PMLA was made out.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
