On 14th December, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court in Shahadara district of Delhi dismissed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) former councilor Tahir Hussain’s plea to stay the money laundering case against him. In his plea, Hussain had requested the court to stay the matter until the charges were framed against him in another matter related to the anti-Hindu Delhi Riots of February 2020.
Hussain is accused in multiple cases related to the riots including the brutal murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma. He is also accused of hatching the larger conspiracy behind the riots.
The Delhi Police is pursuing the criminal cases against him. On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate is pursuing the money laundering case in the matter. As per the ED, hussain laundered crores of rupees using Shell Companies to fund the protests against the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) and the anti-Hindu riots.
In his orders on 14th December, Justice Rawat rejected Hussain’s arguments that there were no proceeds of the crime of money laundering the matter. The appeal in similar matters has already been rejected by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court which was mentioned in the orders. Justice Rawat added that the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is registered against a person only if there is a predicate offence, which in this case is the conspiracy to incite riots).
The court said, “Once the investigation into the PMLA has been initiated, it is also tried as a separate case. Thus, predicate offence triggers initiation of a case under PMLA but is not only independently investigated but also independently and separately tried.”
The order further read, “It is also clear that if there is an order of discharge or acquittal in the predicate offence, then the proceedings in the PMLA case shall come to a stop. That does not mean that if there is an order on charge or conviction, there would also be an automatic conviction in the PMLA case.”
The court asserted that if the case is stayed, it might result in public witnesses being lost. Furthermore, there was no mandate by law to stay the proceedings. Staying the recording of evidence in the matter would jeopardise the case even if the witnesses were available. The court said, “In such circumstances, to contend that until there is no charge or conviction, the proceedings under PMLA should be stayed is not mandated by law. If the PMLA matter is stayed till the charge or by the same logic till the conclusion of the case by way of conviction, then witnesses, particularly public witnesses, may be lost.”
Notably, the charges under relevant sections of PMLA against Hussain were framed in January 2023. At that time, it was noted by the prosecution that the conspiracy was hatched and there was a clear case against Hussain.
Apart from the money laundering case, Tahir Hussain was charged in the matter related to the brutal murder of IB officer Sharma. The charges were framed user Sections 147, 148, 149, 153A, 302, 365, 120B, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
