2 days ago
J&K High Court Rejects ED Bid For Cricket Scam Charges
The case concerns money that was allegedly misused by officials of the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association.
The money came from grants given by the Board of Control for Cricket in India.
The Enforcement Directorate wanted two more charges added to the case.
These charges concerned receiving or hiding stolen property.
The High Court said the evidence currently available was not enough for those charges.
It said the alleged money movements were already part of the main conspiracy and breach of trust case.
However, the court said the trial court may add charges later if new evidence appears.
The case also includes former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah and other former association officials.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s request to add charges under Sections 411 and 424 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The court said the available evidence did not establish a distinct receipt or concealment of stolen property.
It overturned the trial court’s finding that the Enforcement Directorate lacked the legal standing to seek additional charges.
The court said alleged fund movements formed part of the main conspiracy, misappropriation and breach of trust allegations.
The case involves alleged misappropriation of Rs 43.69 crore from Board of Control for Cricket in India grants to the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association.
- Who
- The Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, former Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association officials, and former chief minister Farooq Abdullah are involved in the proceedings.
- What
- The Jammu and Kashmir High Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s request to add charges for dishonestly receiving and concealing property.
- Where
- The case is being heard in Jammu and Kashmir and concerns the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association.
- When
- The High Court issued its decision on Friday; the underlying alleged fund transfers occurred mainly between 2002 and 2011, with related account activity continuing until March 2012.
- Why
- The Enforcement Directorate sought the additional charges based on alleged transfers and withdrawals of misappropriated association funds, but the court found the current evidence insufficient.
Enforcement Directorate’s Position
High Court’s Ruling
Need for additional charges
Enforcement Directorate’s Position
The Enforcement Directorate argued that investigative material showed sufficient grounds to charge the accused with receiving and concealing stolen property in addition to conspiracy and breach of trust.
High Court’s Ruling
The High Court held that the material currently available did not show a distinct receipt or retention of stolen property under Sections 411 and 424.
Interpretation of fund movements
Enforcement Directorate’s Position
The agency relied on alleged transfers of association funds into personal accounts, withdrawals in cash and transfers to other accounts.
High Court’s Ruling
The court said that movement of funds through different accounts, by itself, could not justify a Section 411 charge because the conduct was part of the alleged principal conspiracy and misappropriation.
ED’s legal standing
Enforcement Directorate’s Position
The Enforcement Directorate challenged the trial court’s conclusion that it lacked standing to seek the additional charges.
High Court’s Ruling
The High Court agreed that the agency was entitled to bring alleged omissions to the court’s attention, while still rejecting the requested charges on their merits at this stage.
Key facts
- Rejected charges
- Sections 411 and 424 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
- Alleged misappropriation
- Rs 43.69 crore in Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association funds.
- Source of grants
- The Board of Control for Cricket in India.
- Funds received by JKCA
- Rs 94.06 crore between financial years 2005-2006 and 2011-2012, up to December 2011.
- Assets attached by ED
- Assets worth Rs 2.6 crore belonging to Mirza and Gazanfer were attached in February 2020.
- Trial court authority
- The trial court may alter or add charges under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if fresh evidence emerges.
Quotes
Justice Sanjay Parihar
Jammu and Kashmir High Court judge who issued the ruling
“Should any material emerge during the course of trial which prima facie discloses commission of an offence under sections 411 or 424 of the RPC, or any other penal provision, it shall remain open to the trial court to exercise its power of alteration or addition of charge, strictly in accordance with law.”
rediff.com
“The material presently available does not disclose a distinct receipt or retention of stolen property by the respondents in the capacity contemplated by that provision. Their alleged acts form part of the principal transaction of conspiracy, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust itself.”
rediff.com
Sources
Related news
ED Attaches Rs 13.44 Crore Assets in Club Fraud Case
CBI Chargesheets Forest Officer, Wife in ₹75 Crore CREST Fraud
Delhi Court Orders PMLA Charges in IRCTC Hotel Case
Delhi Court Frames PMLA Charges in IRCTC Hotel Case
CBI Files Third Chargesheet in Alleged ₹504 Crore Haryana Fraud
CBI Names Six Haryana IAS Officers in ₹504-Crore Fraud
Pakistan Warns India Over Indus Waters Treaty at UN
Mandeep Bhandari Appointed CBSE Chairperson After On-Screen Marking Controversy
Mandeep K Bhandari Named New Chairman of CBSE
Army Chief Reviews LoC Readiness, Visits Eye Camp in Tangdhar
Congress MLAs Protest Against Election Chief in J&K Assembly
