New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday (February 13) sought the response of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA and former Delhi Waqf Board chairperson Amanatullah Khan on plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging an order of a trial court refusing to take cognisance of a chargesheet and ordering his release in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case.
Justice Vikas Mahajan issued notice to Khan and directed the trial court to defer its proceedings into the matter till after the next date of hearing in the high court.
What did the ED submit before court?
The order was passed by the court following a request made by the ED counsel submitting that while the trial court had refused to take cognisance of its chargesheet against Khan and his wife, it was scheduled to hear the case on Friday against other accused.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on March 21.
Trial court refused to take cognisance of ED chargesheet against Khan
The trial court had on November 14 last year refused to take cognisance of the chargesheet filed against Khan and ordered his release from judicial custody. It said that there was sufficient evidence against him in the case, however, there was no sanction to prosecute him. It had also discharged his second wife Maryam Siddiqui, saying that there is no evidence against her.
ED on October 29 last year filed first supplementary chargesheet against Khan, his second wife
The ED had filed before the trial court an 110-page first supplementary chargesheet against Khan and his second wife Maryam Siddiqui on October 29 last year. The ED had earlier on January 9 last year had filed the chargesheet before the trial court in the money laundering case under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir, Kausar Imam Siddiqui and Jawed Imam Siddiqui.
What are the allegations?
The ED has alleged that the Okhla MLA acquired “huge proceeds of crime” in cash through illegal recruitment of staff at the Delhi Waqf Board during his chairmanship of the Waqf Board and invested those alleged ill-gotten money to purchase immovable assets in his associates’ name.
