It stressed that the issuance of an addendum to such an ECIR was “without jurisdiction, illegal, and procedurally irregular”.
The Court observed that ED’s conduct lends credence to the argument that the agency was trying to preserve the existing ECIR and retain the coercive powers available under the PMLA, including those relating to search, seizure, freezing and attachment.
“It is another matter that consequential coercive actions undertaken by the ED have, at different stages, been interdicted by orders of this Court,” the Bench added.
It also questioned the ED’s contention that the 2019 and the 2021 FIRs formed part of the same transaction as they relate to the alleged illegal misappropriation of Mahendra Prasad’s assets by Uma Devi — a long-time companion and alleged partner of Prasad – and others.
The Bench found that the allegations forming the substratum of the first FIR and the second FIR were “materially different”.
“The persons proceeded against are not the same. There is no direct nexus between these two sets of offences registered under separate FIRs, except that the complainant is common,” the Court said.