The Delhi court has recently rejected the plea of former AAP councilor Tahir Hussain, who sought a stay on proceedings in a money laundering case against him until charges are framed in another case related to the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
20 individuals, including Hussain, as well as activists Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid, and Khalid Saifi, have been accused in connection with the broader conspiracy to incite the riots.
The money laundering case, initiated by the ED, is linked to the larger conspiracy.
The ED has claimed that Tahir Hussain utilized shell or dummy companies to launder significant sums of money to fuel protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the communal riots.
Emphasizing that charges in the ED case were framed in January of this year and that Tahir Hussain’s appeals against the charge order were dismissed by both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat had rejected the former councillor’s argument that there were no proceeds of crime or money laundering in the case.
The judge clarified that a case under the PMLA can only be registered if there exists a predicate offense (larger conspiracy to incite riots) and that the ED & Delhi Police independently investigated both cases.
The court’s order on December 14 stated, “Once the investigation into the PMLA has been initiated, it is tried as a separate case as well. Thus, the predicate offence triggers initiation of a case under PMLA but is not only independently investigated but also independently and separately tried.”
The court added, “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 held that Tahir Hussain’s request to stay the proceedings was not mandated by law and that a stay would lead to the loss of public witnesses.
It stated, stopping the recording of evidence in the ED case would “put an embargo” on the matter itself despite the availability of witnesses.
The court noted, “There is no judgment of the Supreme Court or the Delhi High Court to buttress the contention that the PMLA matter needs to be stayed till the time order on charge/conviction or acquittal is passed.”
The court declared, the application filed by accused Tahir Hussain for a stay on the proceedings has been dismissed.
