Delhi court rejects CA's plea to turn approver in Jal Board money laundering case

Enforcement Directorate had charge-sheeted CA Tejinder Pal Singh without arrest. He sought pardon in the case. ED had registered a case based on the CBI FIR.

A tender for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning (SITC) Electro Magnetic flow metres and O&M Operation was awarded to M/s NKG Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

Special judge Bhupinder Singh dismissed the application moved on behalf of Tejinder Pal Singh after considering the submissions of counsel and special public prosecutor (SPP) for the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The court said that In the application no reasons have been given as to why theapplication be allowed and if the evidence is indeed required.

It has been referred to as 'crucial' for investigation and not that during trial. Even in arguments, it was not the case that it is indispensable or it is impossible to prove the case qua co-accused persons in absentia of the testimony of the applicant as an approver, it added.

The court observed, "What can be inferred is that the testimony of the applicant doesn't make much difference."

While dismissing the application the court said, "No necessity has been cited and it has been termed as crucial only for joining the dots. The applicant may be willing to disclose everything truthfully but does the prosecution actually need it? What if the prosecution already has what he intends to give".

"Not any accused who is willing to disclose can be given a pardon. The prosecution may only be interested in prosecuting co-accused persons but the court has also to see that the guilty person does not escape punishment just for the reason that he chose to become an approver. His testimony as a witness is required only when there is no other evidence to nail others but at this stage, it does not appear to be the case," special judge Bhupinder Singh said in the order.

The court opined, "The proposed testimony of the applicant as an approver can at best be taken as an icing on the cake but the icing cannot be taken at a cost comparable with that of the whole cake."

"In view of the above discussions and cited case laws, in particular in view of the testimonies available on record in the form of statements of the applicant under section 50 PML Act, 2002 and other supporting/corroborating material like pen drive etc., that no additional/new evidence has been brought to the notice of the court that may be adduced by the applicant and that thethe prosecution has not termed the proposed testimony of the applicant as being necessary and indispensable for the successful prosecution of co-accused persons, the Court finds no merits in the application and the same is disposed of as dismissed," special Judge ordered on August 23.

The court noted that all the evidence in the form of statements under section 50 PML Act, 2002 and under section 164 CrPC of the applicant, were in the possession /knowledge of the investigating agency who after considering them chose that the applicant be made an accused and not an approver.

The ED in its reply had not clearly stated that they need the applicant's testimony for a successful prosecution and that the evidence available on record is insufficient to prove its case.

The Counsel for the applicant Tejinder Pal Singh had submitted that he accepts his role mentioned in the prosecution complaint and the statement given during the ED investigation.

It was further submitted that he is desirous of making a full and through disclosure of all the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned in the commission thereof that will aid and benefit the ED to prove its case against the other accused persons.

It was also submitted that during the investigation, the statement of the applicant was recorded Under section 164 Cr.PC and the same contains the disclosure by him.

It was further submitted that in the contract of flow meter awarded by Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to accused no.5 M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd., the applicant collected a bribe to the tune of Rs 3.19 croresand gave the full amount as per the instructions of accused Jagdish Kumar Arora, who received the same through various bank channels from accused Anil Kumar Aggarwal, the proprietor of M/s Intergral Screw Industries on behalf of accused Jagdish Kumar Arora.

It was further submitted that the applicant/accused transferred Rs.85,21,758 to accused Jagdish Kumar Arora for the purchase of a flat, Rs.33,00,000 to accused Jagdish Kumar Arora for his personal expenses and the remaining Rs.2.01 crores to various persons on instructions of accused Jagdish Kumar Arora.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed a charge sheet against DJB's former Chief Engineer Jagdish Kumar Arora, Anil Kumar Agarwal, Tejinder Pal Singh, DK Mittal and M/s NKG Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

It is alleged by the ED that Part of the proceeds of Crime was transferred by the former DJB Chief Engineer and other officers for election funding of Aam Aadmi Party.

The ED charge sheet said, the investigation revealed that out of Proceed of Crime (Bribe) to the tune of Rs. 2,00,78,242, which had been acquired by Jagdish Kumar Arora, was transferred by him through Tajinder Pal Singh to various persons including other officers of Delhi Jal Board.

The investigation also revealed that Jagdish Kumar Arora and other officers of Delhi Jal Board further transferred part of said PoC for election funding of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), ED said.

Investigation concerning the final utilization of the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 2,00,78,242 which was transferred to various persons including officers of Delhi Jal Board and for election funding of AAP, is ongoing, ED's Charge sheet said. (ANI)