Madras High Court pnp j bench slams CBI court for stalling trial by seeking unrelated document

Chennai: Observing that the sad part in the criminal justice system was that a blind was often leading another and the two finally end up in a cul-de-sac, the Madras High Court set aside a trial court order that sought for the original copy of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in a proceeding despite it being merely an administrative form used by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for commencing investigation.

A division bench comprising Justice PN Prakash and Justice V Sivagnanam made the observation after finding that the trial in two complaints of cheating by JBJ City Developers Ltd by allegedly collecting money for allotting plots in a layout called ‘Little Singapore’ near Koyambedu had come to a halt after the judge sought the original of the ECIR.

The bench noted that the Ed had suo motu registered a case and took up investigation of the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act), 2002, in order to find out if the accused had indulged in money laundering.

Pointing out that Section 420 IPC, which figures in both the FIRs, is a ‘schedule offence’, it added: “An investigation under the PML Act gets triggered against a person only if he is found to have been involved in a ‘schedule offence’. Thus, when the police register a case against a person for a ‘schedule offence’ and when the ED comes to know of it, they can commence investigation under the PML Act by formally recording in the ECIR form about the nature of the ‘schedule offence’ as disclosed in the FIR registered by the police,” the bench held.

A person cannot be convicted or acquitted based on the entries in the ECIR form, because an offence under the PML Act has to be proved by examining witnesses and proving documents, the bench said. “In this scheme of things, the ECIR document really has no significance.”

Directing the IX Additional Special Court for CBI cases to take a final decision in the main case of cheating pending against the promoters Justin Devadoss, Bella Justin and two others, the bench led by Justice Prakash added: “The following passage from the book “Judges” by David Pannick with reference to the American justice system is worth quoting. ‘Inarticulate advocates, bigoted jurymen, careerist prosecutors and incompetent judges have been seen to inhabit a legal system that leaves much to be desired by way of efficiency and fairness.”