Court sentences 2 former Delhi Jal Board officials to 3 years' RI in money laundering case

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has sentenced two former Delhi Jal Board officials to three years of rigorous imprisonment in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), saying it was taking a "lenient view" in the matter.
Raj Kumar Sharma and Ramesh Chand Chaturvedi had already undergone sentences of five years and four years imprisonment, respectively, in a CBI case for the offence of misappropriating around Rs 47.8 lakh from the DJB's coffers. The ED, which registered case against them in December 2009, filed the case in special judge's court in March 2021 after a gap of nearly 11 years.
The court noted that the sentences of the CBI and the ED cases could have been concurrent had the ED not delayed in filing the complaint, but the sentence awarded could not be adjusted.
Special judge Ashwani Kumar Sarpal said: "No doubt, this strong possibility of awarding concurrent sentences now has been snatched from the accused persons due to delayed complaint filed by the ED but there was no limitation for filing the present complaint case and accordingly, the mere fact that the ED has woken up after several years itself is not a ground to impose any sentence less than three years or to adjust this sentence with the earlier sentence undergone in the CBI matter."
The judge added: "They have already undergone sentences of five and four years, respectively, in scheduled offences." He said the court was "taking a lenient view" and both would have to face "rigorous imprisonment of three years and be liable to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 each."
Sharma was working as a cashier for the west zone of DJB, while Chaturvedi was the assistant meter reader in 2008. According to the prosecution, between February and December 2008, both men falsified and forged records and misappropriated Rs 47.76 lakh. The CBI registered an FIR against both in June 2009.
The judge said that the duo's submissions regarding loss of jobs, responsibility of families and being reformed after the sentence, "could be genuine reasons, but the court is helpless and cannot impose any sentence less than three years".