Will call for CCTV: Delhi Court warns ED amid claims of unprofessional behaviour during interrogation

New Delhi, 3 November, 2022: Following allegations of improper conduct by ED during the questioning of Sameer Mahendru’s employees, managing director of the Indospirit group, a Delhi court on Thursday issued a strict warning to the vigilance agency.

Mahendru’s attorneys had informed a special court headed by Judge N K Nagpal that the ED was “using considerable force” and that his staff was being summoned in for interrogation every day, with the result that half of them had resigned. They also said that they were abruptly asked to join the probe early the next morning.

“They are released every day between midnight and one o’clock. There are also female employees. They are compelled to be present,” Mahendru’s attorney told the court, “The first thing they do is take you to the jail and say they will book you here.”

In response, the judge commanded, “Do it in a fair manner. If there is physical torture, I will call for CCTV footage.”

They are in the doldrums, the attorney told the jury. Twenty members of the lower staff were summoned and made to provide testimony. The company uses its employees’ phones to make calls to other employees. They don’t summon them; they just call, it is further argued.

Prosecutor, N K Matta, representing ED, said before the court that the ED followed the rules during interrogation. Summons are sent forth. Permission from higher authorities is obtained. That kind of entry doesn’t exist, he declared.

“I shall call for the whereabouts of the cell,” the judge threatened the ED. Whether they were present or not, till midnight. Instead of doing things this way, do it legally,” he added.

The defendant’s lawyer also stated that they would submit an application listing the ED officials who they believed were accountable for the alleged improper conduct. After the arrest and detention of the accused in the current case, they had filed an application to obtain the accused’s signature on certain papers that claimed to be the board resolution of the accused’s firms, in which one other director had been omitted.

The attorneys further said that because the firms were having trouble meeting their legal obligations, they needed to appoint an additional director because “other companies were taking out their business” from his firm.