 "Enforcement Directorate")
The Rouse Avenue court took cognizance of the prosecution complaint (charge sheet) filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case.
The ED has charge sheeted four persons Zeeshan Haider his partnership firm Skypower, Javed Imam Siddiqui, Dawood Nasir, Qausar Imam Siddiqui.
The ED has alleged money laundering in the purchase and sale of Rs. 36 crore property on the behest of AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan.
Special CBI judge Rakesh Syal took cognizance of the charge sheet and directed to supply the copies of the charge sheet to counsel for the accused.
The court has listed the hearing on bail of three accused namely Javed Imam Siddiqui, Dawood Nasir and Javed Imam Siddiqui on January 25, 2024. The court has also listed the matter for scrutiny of charge sheet and documents.
The Rouse Avenue court on January 12, 2024 reserved order on cognizance of the Prosecution Complaint (Charge sheet).
The ED has already filed a Prosecution Complaint (Charge Sheet) against accused Zeeshan Haider, his partnership firm Skypower, Javed Imam Siddiqui, Dawood Nasir and Qausar Siddiqui.
It is alleged by the ED that a property of Rs. 36 crore was purchased with ill-gotten money at the behest of AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan. He himself handed over Rs. 8 crore in cash.
In response to a question related to the role of Amanat Ullah Khan, ED's counsel submitted that further investigation related to the role of others is going on.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) Manish Jain for ED argued before the court.
SPP Manish Jain submitted that the allegations in predicate offence related to irregularities in Delhi Waqf Board is how the main accused Amanat Ullah was involved in corrupt practices. The allegations is that Rs. 100 crore property was misappropriated and jobs were provided to people in Delhi Waqf Board. There are allegations of misappropriation and siphoning of funds.
It was also submitted that during the investigation of this PMLA case, ED considered the FIRs were registered earlier, by the CBI, ACB and Delhi police.
It was further submitted that ACB requested for investigation under PMLA against MLA and then chairman Amanat Ullah Khan. Properties allegedly were made at Delhi, Telengana and Uttrakhand with alleged ill-gotten money.
ACB conducted searches at the premises owned and controlled by Hamid Ali Khan and Qausar Imam Siddiqui. Incriminating evidence and illegal weapons were recovered.
During the searches, three diaries were also recovered. Qausar Imam Siddiqui was maintaining these diaries.
In relation to recovery of illegal weapons, an FIR was registered at police station Jamia Nagar under the section of the Arms Act.
It was also alleged that he purchased properties in the name of his benamidar Zeeshan Haider.
SPP Jain also submitted that diaries reveal high value transactions between Amanat Ullah and Javed Imam Siddiqui including purchasing of a plot measuring 1200 Square Yards in Tikona Park, in Okhla.
This particular property was purchased for Rs. 36 crore and this transaction is supported by the diary. Rs. 8 crore cash was handed over by Amanat Ullah. Rs. 9 crore was paid through banking channel by accused Zeeshan and Dawood Nasir to Javed Imam Siddiqui.
The court asked who was the original owner of this property.
SPP Jain said that the original owner of the property is Aisha Kanwar who bought it in 2019. It was sold to the accused Zeeshan and Dawood in 2021.
An agreement to sell of Rs. 36 crore was recovered from the mobile of the accused. This transaction is supported by the diary, agreement to sell and at the behest of Amanat Ullah.
ED submitted that this property was bought at the behest of Amanat Ullah Khan. Qausar Imam Siddiqui is cousin brother of Javed Imam Siddiqui.
Instead of placing the original agreement of Rs. 36 crore, another agreement of Rs. 13.40 crore was created and produced.
It shows that they manipulated the front page. It is tampering with the evidence, ED's counsel argued.
He also submitted that out of Rs. 36 crore, a Rs. 27 crore cash transaction is evident. It is a clear-cut established against the accused persons and a fit case to summon the accused persons.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
