On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to overturn a Delhi High Court decision that maintained the trial court’s decision to prosecute former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in a money laundering case.
A bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal noted that individual complaint reports for scheduled offences in money-laundering cases could be filed without first filing an ED prosecution complaint. “The case is only at the stage of framing of charges. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Needless to say that proceedings have to be as per the judgment in Vijay Madanlal,” the Court said.
According to Bar and Bench’s report, the Delhi High Court’s refusal to overturn a trial court judgement establishing charges was challenged by Hussain before the Supreme Court. Earlier, the Delhi High Court framed charges against former MCD councillor Tahir Hussain for funding anti-Hindu riots in 2020.
It was noted that Hussain conspired to partake in money laundering, and the proceeds of the crime were used in funding the northeast Delhi riots against Hindus. As reported earlier, Hussain was already charged in three separate cases in link with the February 2020 violence in Delhi, including the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Notably, the Delhi High Court also in November 2022 rejected Hussain’s bail plea and dismissed his plea challenging a trial court order framing charges against him in the money laundering case. The trial court order stated that it appeared prima facie that the accused Tahir Hussain was involved in the Delhi Riots 2020 conspiracy and engaged in money laundering.
On Monday, Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for Hussain in the Supreme Court and argued that anti-riot laws cannot be used to initiate money-laundering proceedings. She continued by saying that in the lack of a first information report (FIR) for a money-laundering offence, the High Court had retrieved the prosecution case and relied on its simplicity.
To this, Justice Ramasubramanian responded by saying, “If a scheduled offence is there, the complaint can be in any jurisdiction where the money is laundered. A scheduled offence wherever it is committed, an independent FIR can be registered. It does not mean that FIR will have to thereafter emanate after ECIR. If there is a causal connection between FIR and prosecution complaints, the court only has to look at the allegations. Rest comes during the trial.”
It is notable to mention that Tahir Hussain had earlier confessed in a disclosure statement that he chose his own house as a launchpad for the riots. Given that his house was a high-rise building and was under construction at that time, it was easy to collect stones and bricks without raising any suspicion.
He also confessed that he and his co-conspirators had started collecting stones, bricks, and other ammunition, well in advance so that they could teach those, who were in support of the CAA, a lesson when the time was right. The Aam Aadmi Party later expelled Tahir Hussain from the party.
