Srinagar, Sep 25: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh Friday rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) plea seeking its intervention for addition of charges under Sections 411 and 424 of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) against the accused in the alleged Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) funds misappropriation case.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar, however, set aside the trial court’s finding that the ED lacked the “locus standi” to move an application for addition of charges, holding that the ED could bring relevant material to the court’s notice for consideration.
The High Court pronounced its decision in response to the ED’s criminal revision plea against the March 22, 2026 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI Cases), Srinagar.
The CJM had dismissed the ED’s plea to add charges under Sections 411 and 424 of RPC against the patron of the National Conference and former chief minister, Farooq Abdullah, besides five others in connection with a money laundering probe related to the alleged JKCA fund misappropriation case.
However, the Court had ordered framing of charges in CBI case against Farooq, the then president of JKCA, Muhammad Saleem Khan, the then general secretary, Ahsan Ahmad Mirza, the then treasurer, Bashir Ahmad Misgar, an executive in the J&K Bank, besides ManzoorGazanffer Ali and Gulzar Ahmad Beigh.
The case stems from allegations concerning the alleged misappropriation of funds received by the JKCA from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The CBI charge-sheet alleged that around Rs 43.69 crore out of approximately Rs 112.13 crore received by the JKCA was misappropriated. The CBI ultimately framed the case around criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC.
The ED had argued that the material in the CBI charge-sheet also disclosed offences under Sections 411 and 424 RPC and that these charges had significance for its proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The High Court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the ED application merely on the ground of locus standi. Once the ED had been permitted to approach the trial court, the latter was required to examine whether the material on record prima facie disclosed the ingredients of the proposed offences, it said.
On merits, however, the court found that the material presently available did not establish the essential ingredients of Section 411 RPC. It observed that the accused had been projected as participants in the principal conspiracy through which JKCA funds were allegedly misappropriated, rather than as persons who subsequently received or retained stolen property.
The court also noted that the movement of funds through different accounts, in the circumstances of the case, formed part of the alleged misappropriation itself and did not establish a distinct subsequent receipt or retention of stolen property.
Furthermore, the court clarified that Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the trial court to add or alter charges at any stage before judgment, but such power must be exercised on the basis of material prima facie disclosing the offence.
Accordingly, the court partly allowed the ED’s petition by setting aside the finding on locus standi, while rejecting its substantive prayer to add charges under Sections 411 and 424 RPC. It clarified that if fresh material emerges during trial, the trial court would remain free to alter or add charges in accordance with law.
In response to a complaint on the allegations of misappropriation of funds in JKCA, the Police Station Ram MunshiBagh, Srinagar had registered a case (FIR No.27/2012) dated 10.03.2012 under Section 120- B, 406 and 409 of RPC. Following the High Court’s intervention, the investigation in the FIR was transferred to CBI, subsequently.
In July 2017, the CBI filed a charge-sheet before the CJM Srinagar in the case for charges of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust under the RPC against the accused. The ED had later named the same persons in the money-laundering case.
In response to a plea against the money-laundering case, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh on August 14, 2024, while quashing the charges against Abdullah and others had said that no predicate offence was made against the individuals. It had quashed the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet filed by the ED.
However, the HC gave the federal probe agency liberty to approach the trial court for filing fresh charges that form part of the predicate offence. Nearly in a month later, in September 2024, the ED moved an application in the trial court to seek addition of the charges in the case.
