ED Is Not An Investigating Agency Stricto Sensu: Kerala HC Dismisses AAP State President's Plea Seeking Action In Kodakara Money Heist Case
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Vinod Mathew Wilson, the State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) who sought action in Kodakara Money Heist case.
The Court said that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not an investigating agency.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed, “… it is clear that the Enforcement Directorate is not an investigating agency stricto sensu. The command and mandate of the Enforcement Directorate under the 2002 Act is to ensure that no person benefits from the proceeds of crime derived out of the commission of a scheduled offence and to see that such property is confiscated to the State. Therefore, in the facts of this case there cannot be any direction issued to consider Ext.P3 which has been filed with a prayer to register a case and arrest certain individuals for that is not the mandate of the Enforcement Directorate.”
Advocate Manu Ramachandran appeared for the petitioner while SCGC Krishna T.C. and SC Jaishankar V. Nair appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner submitted that a money heist had occurred within the limits of Kodakara Police Station and a crime concerning the same was registered in the said police station. As per him, since the said heist had hawala and money laundering overtones involving political leaders, he preferred representations before the authorities, seeking registration of a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). He contended that no action was taken by the concerned authorities (respondents) on his representations and since according to him the nature of crime involved had ramifications for the economic security of the nation, he moved a writ petition seeking prayers before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts said, “Moreover, the statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 filed in this case indicates that the Enforcement Directorate has registered an ECIR/KCZO/11/23 in the above matter and the same is being enquired into as well. Thus we see no reason to direct the consideration of Ext.P3.”
The Court noted that a reading of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) shows that the process starts with the registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in respect of an offence set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act and a reading of final report indicates that even in the final report there is no indication that any of the offences in the Schedule to the NIA Act has been committed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Vinod Mathew Wilson v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:32952)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Manu Ramachandran, M.Kiranlal, T.S.Sarath, R.Rajesh (Varkala), Sameer M Nair, Sailakshmi Menon, Jothisha K.A., and Shifana M.
Respondents: SCGC Krishna T.C. and SC Jaishankar V. Nair.