J&K Cricket Association Case: Srinagar court to frame charges against former CM Farooq Abdullah

A court in Srinagar has found prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy and breach of trust against former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and other accused in the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) funds case [Central Bureau of Investigation V/s Saleem Khan and Ors.]

In an order passed on March 2, Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar Tabasum held that the material on record disclosed prima facie offences under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) against the accused persons, including Farooq Abdullah, and directed that charges be framed against them.

However, the Court rejected a plea by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to invoke additional offences against the accused.

The case arose out of a first information report (FIR) registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds in the J&K Cricket Association.

The CBI filed a chargesheet against six accused including former office bearers of the JKCA and Farooq Abdullah, who served as the association’s president.

Two accused Manzoor Gazanfar Ali and Gulzar Ahmad Beigh had already been granted pardon and turned approvers in the case.

The Court concluded that there was prima facie evidence to proceed against the other accused.

“After carefully perusing the material on record and applicable law, this court finds that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC are prima facie made out against all the accused persons,” the order stated.

Thus it listed the case on March 12 for framing of charges.

This would mean that Abdullah and other accused would now have to face trial.

Pertinently, the Court rejected an application filed by ED seeking addition of offences under Sections 411 (dishonest reception or retention of stolen property) and 414 (assisting in concealing or disposing of stolen property) of IPC.

The Court held that the ED had no locus standi to seek modification of charges in the present case.

The Court noted that the case had been investigated and prosecuted by the CBI and the ED was neither the investigating agency nor the prosecuting agency.

The Court further observed that ED can act only when a predicate offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) exists and it cannot, on its own, assume that such an offence has been committed.

“The power of ED to investigate and enquire stands mainly connected to the offence of money laundering as defined in the PMLA. ED cannot assume from the material gathered by it, that a predicate offence stands committed. The predicate offence has to be necessarily investigated and tried by the authorities empowered by law,” the order said.

Referring to judicial precedents including the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that ED authorities cannot initiate action under PMLA merely on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed.

It further noted that the IPC provisions cited by the ED were no longer applicable as the IPC had been repealed with effect from July 1, 2024.

Consequently, the ED’s application seeking addition of charges was dismissed as not maintainable.

Advocate Farhat Zia appeared for the CBI while advocate Umar Rashid represented the Enforcement Directorate.

Advocate Ishtiyaq Khan represented Farooq Abdullah.

Advocate NA Ronga, Shariq Jan and MD Khan appeared for other accused persons.

[Read Order]