The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed a chargesheet towards former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah and others in connection regarding cash laundering allegations of irregularities within the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Affiliation (JKCA). On August 14, the state’s Excessive Courtroom revoked the costs filed by the ED.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar, who foresaw the proceedings, reasoned that there was no affirmed offence carried out by the people in query and the chargesheet was subsequently quashed. The ED had charged Nationwide Convention chief Abdullah, Ahsan Ahmad Mirza (former treasurer of JKCA), Mir Manzoor Gazanffer (one other ex-treasurer of the JKCA), and others within the cost sheet.
The ED filed a cost sheet alleging misrepresentation of funds JKCA obtained from BCCI. It was reported that Rs 94.06 crore have been obtained in three completely different financial institution accounts throughout the monetary years 2005-2006 to 2011-2012 (up till December 2011). In consequence, Abdullah, Mirza, Gazanffer, and former accountants Bashir Ahmad Misgar and Gulzar Ahmad Beigh have been accused of misappropriating the JKCA funds amounting to Rs 43.69 crore.
Additionally Learn: BCB denies allegations of delay in disbursing 2023 ODI World Cup prize cash to gamers
Following the identical, the ED filed the case referring to the cost sheet filed by CBI in 2018 on the identical accuse, Abdullah and subordinates, whereas attaching property value 21.55 crore with beforehand three separate orders handed. Furthermore, ED arrested Mirza in November 2019, based mostly on the cost sheet and the case remains to be ongoing.
Our plea was accepted, ED had no jurisdiction over the case: Shariq J Reyaz
Mirza and Gazanffer have been represented by Shariq J Reyaz because the latter had reached out to the Excessive Courtroom requesting quashing of the case filed by ED. Further Solicitor Normal S V Raju argued on behalf of ED and the judgement was reserved for August 7. Nonetheless, Reyaz revealed that “our plea that no predicate offence was made out,” highlighting the courtroom’s choice of their favour. Furthermore, he additionally highlighted the purpose that ED had no jurisdiction over the mentioned case.
Get each cricket updates! Comply with Us:
