National Herald case: Delhi court refuses to take cognisance of ED's prosecution complaint against Gandhis

Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi.

A Delhi court on Tuesday declined to take cognisance of Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, as well as five others in the National Herald case. It further ruled that Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and others accused in the case are not entitled to a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them by the Delhi Police in connection with the case.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts pronounced the verdict. The judge, however, ruled that the accused may be informed that the FIR has been registered.

On October 3, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police lodged an FIR against the Gandhis, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, Young Indian and others, alleging cheating, dishonest misappropriation, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy.

It has been alleged that they acquired properties worth approximately Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper.

The FIR stems from information provided by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. Meanwhile, the ED continues its probe into the alleged money laundering, based on a court order taking cognisance of a complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.

The investigation agency further alleged that the Gandhis held the majority 76 per cent shares in Young Indian, which "fraudulently" usurped the assets of AJL in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne noted the chargesheet filed in the case is based on an investigation into a complaint by a private person and not on an FIR of a predicate offence. Its cognisance is impermissible in law, the judge said.

Reading out the operative part from the order, the judge said the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing has already lodged an FIR in the case, and hence it will be premature to adjudicate on ED's arguments in the case based on merits.