JKCA Case: J&K High Court Rejects ED Plea to Add Sections 411, 424 RPC Against Farooq Abdullah, Others

JKCA Case: J&K High Court Rejects ED Plea to Add Sections 411, 424 RPC Against Farooq Abdullah, Others

Srinagar, September 25: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s plea seeking addition of charges under Sections 411 and 424 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) in the alleged Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) funds-misappropriation case involving former JKCA president and National Conference leader Dr. Farooq Abdullah and others.

Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the material presently forming part of the CBI charge-sheet did not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 411 and 424 RPC.

The case relates to allegations of misappropriation of JKCA funds received from the BCCI. The CBI charge-sheet alleges that approximately ₹43.69 crore was misappropriated pursuant to a criminal conspiracy involving Farooq Abdullah and other accused. Charges have already been framed under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC.

The ED had approached the Trial Court seeking addition of Sections 411 and 424 RPC, contending that the material in the CBI charge-sheet also disclosed these offences. The Trial Court had rejected the application, including on the ground that the ED lacked locus standi.

The High Court held that the Trial Court was wrong in completely negating the ED’s locus to bring relevant material to its notice, particularly after liberty had earlier been granted to the ED to approach the Trial Court.

However, the High Court clarified that such liberty did not mean that the proposed charges had to be framed. The Court was required to independently examine whether the material on record prima facie established the ingredients of the additional offences.

On Section 411 RPC, Justice Parihar observed that participation in the principal offence of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation does not, by itself, make a person a receiver of stolen property. There must be material showing a distinct receipt or retention of stolen property with knowledge or reason to believe that it was stolen.

The Court held that the alleged movement of JKCA funds through different accounts, on the material presently available, formed part of the alleged principal transaction of conspiracy and misappropriation and did not establish a distinct subsequent receipt or retention attracting Section 411 RPC.

The Court accordingly partly allowed the ED’s petition by setting aside the finding that the ED had no locus to move the application, but rejected its substantive request to add Sections 411 and 424 RPC.

The High Court made it clear that the Trial Court would remain free to alter or add charges under Section 216 CrPC if further evidence emerging during the trial prima facie discloses these or any other offences.

KTD