CHENNAI: A Chennai special court last week rejected the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC)’s refusal to hand over documents of a corruption case to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), probing the money-laundering aspect of the case.
The DVAC’s refusal was on the grounds that the ED had no locus standi to seek the documents and that a money-laundering investigation by the central agency had nothing to do with their probe under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that both operated under different fields.
The case pertains to a disproportionate assets case booked by DVAC, the state government’s anti-corruption agency, against the former registrar of Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council Dr G Josephine in May 2019. The DVAC filed a final report before the trial court after completing its investigation.
Based on DVAC’s case, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in March 2020 and started an investigation under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against the accused.
The central agency filed a petition before the court under Section 210 of the Criminal Rules of Practice requesting certified copies of DVAC’s final investigation report and other documents as they required it for their probe.
DVAC objected to this, arguing that the case was still in the early stages of trial and documents that ED had demanded were yet to be marked in court through relevant witnesses. Handing it over to ED at this stage would cause great prejudice to them, K Usharani, the special public prosecutor appearing for DVAC argued.
DVAC rejected ED’s argument that their investigation would be hampered if the documents were not provided. “The case against the accused is under the Prevention of Corruption Act. PMLA has nothing to do with the case under the Act,” the agency said.
Interestingly, the accused in the case also filed a memo opposing ED’s demand, stating it would cause them “severe prejudice” and “untold hardship”.
Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the special judge L Maheshwari on August 9 ruled in ED’s favour stating that there is no bar to grant documents to another investigation agency probing the same accused.
The judge said the apex court had held that granting certified copies of documents to ED is not contrary to law and that even digital records could be granted under the copy application filed by ED as they are also an investigation agency. The judge also pointed out how the investigation in the DVAC case was over and was pending trial with two witnesses examined.
Arguments of ED
Final report of DVAC’s investigation and other documents needed for investigation under PMLA
No prejudice will be caused to DVAC in providing these documents
Special court ruling
No bar in giving documents to another investigation agency conducting investigation against the same accused
DVAC’s arguments
Case in early stage of trial, hence documents can’t be given
ED has no locus standi to seek documents
Investigation under PMLA and Prevention of Corruption separate
PMLA does not mandate disclosure of all documents to ED