AgustaWestland chargesheet leakage: Submissions of ED not worthy of reliance, CBI Court

The Special CBI Court today pulled up the Enforcement Directorate (ED) terming its submissions regarding leakage of chargesheet in AgustaWestland case, as “not worthy of reliance”..Refusing to accept that the chargesheet/prosecution complaint leak in the AgustaWestland case was “caused from the extra copy left behind” by the Enforcement Directorate with the Court’s Ahlmad, the Special CBI Court has directed the Director, ED to take necessary steps to ensure that no “such incident” is repeated in future..After perusing the status report filed by the ED, as well as the Ahlmad, in the leak, the Court concluded that ED’s allegation that the leak was facilitated by a court staff “appeared incorrect”. The order was passed by Special CBI Judge Arvind Kumar in an application by the alleged middleman in the AgustaWestland deal, Christian Michel, seeking a ‘free and fair trial’ after the supplementary chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate in the AgustaWestland case was accessed by media houses..While the Enforcement Directorate had initially urged the Court to issue notice to Republic TV in connection with the leak, it later decided to not pursue that line of argument any further and claimed that charesheet was a public document..It nonetheless filed its status report to the court, in a sealed cover and claimed that the there was no leakage of chargesheet on the part of the Enforcement Directorate. As per the Enforcement Directorate’s version detailed in the status report, the Court had directed verification of documents from Ahlmad after the chargesheet was filed on April 4. For that purpose, the Assistant Enforcement Officer (AEO) made one copy of the chargehseet which was provided to Ahlmad. This copy was then rectified by Ahlmad who carried out certain amendments to the last three pages. The copy was then retained by the Ahlmad, which ultimately lead to the leak, ED alleged..On the other hand, as per the report filed by Ahlmad pursuant to the Court’s order, the ED had filed just the original chargehseet along with the documents, and no additional copy of the same was filed..Rebutting the series of events as stated by the ED, the Court recorded that it had neither directed verification of documents or filing of any additional copy..“There is nothing in the order dated 04.04.2019 that documents were to be verified by the Ahlmad. There is no mention of filing of any additional copy of the 4th Supplementary complaint by the Enforcement Directorate. The order sheet is very clear on this point that no separate copy of the 4th Supplementary complaint was filed by the Enforcement Directorate.”.It further noted that the ED did not even inform the Court about filing an additional copy until the same was mentioned in their status report on April 11. It also remarked that there is no reason for the AEO to leave a copy behind..“The Enforcement Directorate has not stated about filing of any additional copy in court, by way of separate application or by orally mentioning and has alleged these facts only on 11.04.2019 in their status report, after the accused has filed the present application for necessary directions..It is not clear as to what prevented Enforcement Directorate to point out to the Court on 04.04.2019 or on 06.04.2019 that they had filed such a copy in the court or handed over any copy to Ahlmad.”.The Court also took note of the fact that the AEO did not take any receiving from the Ahlmad when he filed the additional copy..The Court thus exclaimed that even if, the contents of the status report were to be believed, the AEO’s conduct was “totally uncalled for and negligent”..Interestingly, the Court also recorded that the ED’s version in the status report was in contradiction with its own statements made in the reply which was filed in the application..“Here it also needs to be mentioned that the first para of status report, the Enforcement Directorate stated that prosecution complaint has been leaked and circulated, reflects that the same are photographs of the original prosecution complaint taken by mobile phone, while in the affidavit, Sh. Karun Bansal, AEO their case is that their fourth supplementary complaint was likely to be leaked from the copy which was retained by Ahlamd. There is contradiction in the version of the Enforcement Directorate.“.The Court also refused to believe ED’s averment that Ahlmad rectified and amended the last three pages of the chargehseet..“The averment of ED is not worthy of reliance as rectification/amendment, if any, is to be done in the main complaint and same can only be done with the permission of the court and not otherwise..Ahlmad has no business to make any rectification/amendment in the complaint or in the list of relied upon documents. “.The Court thus concluded that no additional copy of the chargesheet was filed by the ED with Ahlmad as it declared ED’s status report ‘not worthy of reliance’..“The status report filed by the Enforcement Directorate is thus not worthy of reliance. This Court has no hesitation in holding that no additional copy of fourth supplementary complaint was filed by ED with Ahlmad. Here it also needs to be recorded that it has never been practised in the Court to retain additional copy of complaint without mentioning it in the order sheet.”.It, however, refrained itself from further dealing with the issue of media leak and whether the leak was a deliberate act or a result of negligence or carelessness..It has nonetheless directed the Director, Enforcement Directorate to take necessary steps to ensure that no “such incident” is repeated in future..“The Court need not go further into the issue regarding media getting access to the 4th Supplementary Complaint and whether the act of showing/giving supplementary complaint to media was deliberate act or was result of negligence or carelessness. However, under the given facts and circumstances, I deem it fit to direct the Director, Enforcement Directorate to take necessary steps to ensure that no such incident is repeated in future in any matter whatsoever. Further this Court does not find any contempt of Court being Committed.”.Advocates Aljo Joseph, Vishnu Shankar and Sriram Parakkat appeared for Christian Michel. Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh appeared for ED..Read the order:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.