Pendency of economic cases: HC summons ED top boss

Expressing displeasure at the huge number of pending economic offences cases, some of which are in the investigation stage despite being registered up to 24 years ago, the Delhi High Court has summoned the chief of the Enforcement Directorate.

Justice AK Sikri sought personal appearance of the top directorate official on November 11 so that he could be apprised of the grim situation for necessary remedial action.

The court passed the direction on a petition filed by Brindavan Enterprises Limited, which complained that a case of economic offence registered against it was stuck at the pre-charge evidence stage though it was registered 20 years ago.

According to the petition, Enforcement Directorate officials searched the company's premises on December 14, 1980. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the firm in the court of the metropolitan magistrate concerned on February 21, 1986, more than six years after the searches.

However, even 20 years after the searches, the case was at the pre-charge evidence stage. The company sought the quashing of the case on the ground that such an unnecessary delay was negation of an accused's right to speedy trial.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) stated in her report that scores of cases registered prior to 1990 were still at various stages of investigation.

While prosecution evidence is yet to be concluded in many cases, even charges have not been framed in some. All these cases were 18 to 24 years old, the report said.

Justice Sikri noted that the pendency of these cases for such a long time was a cause for concern and since many such cases were at initial stages, there was no likelihood of their conclusion in the near future.

"All these cases relate to economic offences and by these delays, the very purpose of institution of criminal proceedings is frustrated," the court observed while directing the enforcement directorate chief to appear before it.

"It not only causes harm to the department/public exchequer, it negates the right of the accused to have speedy trial, which is guaranteed to the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution," the court said.