Attack On ED Officials | Calcutta HC Notices Inconsistencies In FIRs; Directs State To Produce Case Diaries & Original Documents
The Calcutta High Court instructed the State to produce case diaries and the original documents (including FIRs) registered by the Nazat Police Station against officers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The ED, investigating large-scale corruption in the "Ration Scam," encountered challenges during a raid on the Trinamool Congress (TMC) Leader Sajahan Sheik's residence, including facing a hostile mob and sustaining assaults.
The Court listed the matter for listing on January 22, 2024, while noting inconsistency between the two FIRs that presented entirely different versions of the incident.
The Court also directed the State to explain the noted inconsistencies, and any actions taken to address omissions by their officials must be disclosed.
“This Court is desirous of looking into the case diaries and the original two documents being FIR No. 7 of 2024 and FIR No. 8 of 2024 dated 05.01.2024 registered by the Nazat Police Station, Barishat Police District which shall be produced on the adjourned date... The State shall explain the aforesaid inconsistencies. Any other steps taken by the State to address any omission on the part of their officials shall also be disclosed”, the Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed.
Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju with Deputy Solicitor General D. Trivedi appeared for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Advocate General Kishore Datta with Public Prosecutor Debasish Roy appeared for the State.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was aggrieved by FIR, registered by Nazat Police Station. The ED, investigating large-scale corruption in the "Ration Scam," faced obstacles during a raid on Sajahan Sheik's residence, encountering a mob and sustaining assaults. The ED contended that Sajahan Sheik's involvement was suggested by mobile tower data.
The Court, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Haryana v Bhajanlal [(1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335)], reiterated that a mala fide registration of an FIR was grounds for quashing it. The Court emphasized that if a criminal proceeding was manifestly attended with malice or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for vengeance, it could be quashed.
The Court noted a significant inconsistency between two FIRs, one filed at 10:30 A.M. based on a complaint by Didarbaksh Molla, and another at 1:30 P.M. by Pinaki Sarkar. The differing versions of the incident raised doubts about the pre-timing of FIR No. 7 to display a prior FIR against the ED officials on the same day. The Court expressed a desire to examine case diaries and the original FIRs, directing their production on the adjourned date.
In response to these inconsistencies, the Court directed the State to explain, and disclose any corrective actions taken by their officials.
Pending the hearing of the revisional application, proceedings related to FIR No. 7 of 2024 stayed until March 31, 2024. The Court instructed the State to file an affidavit-in-opposition by January 18, 2024, and the ED to file a reply by the adjourned date.
Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for January 22, 2024.
Cause Title: Enforcement Directorate v The State of West Bengal & Ors.
