Today, On 7th June, The Madras High Court discharged IPS Officer Pramod Kumar in the Paazee Forex extortion case. Kumar accused of involvement in extorting money in connection with the Paazee Forex scam. The court’s decision to clear him of charges signifies a significant development in the case. This case involved allegations of financial misconduct and extortion within the forex trading scheme.
Chennai: The Madras High Court discharged Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Pramod Kumar from a case registered against him for allegedly extorting money from the directors of Paazee Forex Trading India Limited. The company defrauded depositors of several crores of rupees.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh of the Madras High Court set aside the order of the II Additional District Judge for CBI cases, Coimbatore, which had declined to discharge Pramod Kumar from the case. The case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and charges had been framed against Pramod Kumar.
The judge, after a thorough and analytical examination of the arguments presented by both sides, as well as a careful review of the charges filed against the petitioner, Pramod Kumar, concluded that the charges framed without due consideration and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Read Also: Patna High Court Denies Quashing FIR Against IPS Amit Lodha
The court found that the offenses alleged against the petitioner were not supported by any prima facie evidence presented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Consequently, the court ruled that the orders of the trial court dated November 23 and 28, 2013, which involved the framing of charges, were flawed and could not be sustained.
The prosecution alleged that Pramod Kumar, while serving as Inspector General of Police, misused his position to extort Rs 10 crore from the directors of Paazee Forex. However, while discharging Pramod Kumar from the case, the judge observed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to establish the essential elements of demand and acceptance against the petitioner.
The judge noted that simply asserting that another accused received money on behalf of the petitioner does not substantiate the case, labelling it as presumptive and legally unsustainable.
The judge emphasized,
“There is a significant difference between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true.”
After reviewing all the prosecution’s evidence, clear that the prosecution could not prove the offences against the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt.
Read Also: [IAS vs IPS]| Supreme Court Urges Settlement Between IAS and IPS Officers
The judge noted that there was no evidence of either a demand or acceptance of a bribe by the petitioner from the complainant. Additionally, no recovery or money trail connecting the petitioner to any illegal gratification, which detrimental to the CBI’s case regarding the alleged misuse of power for illegal gain. The trial court, without concrete proof or commission of the offense, framed charges against the petitioner.
The court also mistakenly believed that the petitioner, a member of the committee overseeing the disbursement of funds to defrauded depositors, whereas, in reality, he was not part of such a committee.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
