IPS officer Ajay Hilory was accused of accepting bribes from the director of IMA to cover up irregularities in the IMA ponzi scam case.
The Karnataka High Court on July 28 quashed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case registered against senior IPS officer Ajay Hilory in connection with the multi-crore I-Monetary Advisory (IMA) scam. The court cited a decision by the Supreme Court, where petitioners were exonerated in the departmental inquiry, as the basis for this ruling. Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single-member bench, dismissed all legal proceedings against Ajay Hilory related to the IMA scam.
The IMA scam involved allegations of swindling investors of substantial sums of money through companies linked to I-Monetary Advisory. Ajay Hilory served as the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of the East Division during the relevant period from January 1, 2017, to August 16, 2018. He had submitted a report on May 16, 2017, recommending the closure of an inquiry against the IMA group as per the findings of the Police Inspector of Commercial Street police station, who had stated that the group was operating its business in accordance with rules and regulations. The report was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police for further directions.
On January 7, 2020, the government authorised the CBI to initiate an investigation into the IMA scam, leading to allegations against Ajay Hilory of accepting bribes from the IMA company director to cover up the irregularities. This resulted in his name being included in the supplementary charge sheet.
The departmental inquiry findings revealed that Ajay was only charged with negligence for failing to thoroughly consider a report of the Police Inspector, but all other charges of bribery or other offences were not proved. As a result, Ajay Hilory was issued a warning, which the court deemed to be more of an exoneration rather than a penalty, leading to the closure of proceedings against him.
The court further pointed out that no substantial evidence was found to support the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act or Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Even the Investigating Officer and the witnesses involved in the initial inquiry failed to provide any evidence to support the charges. Taking into account the lack of substantial evidence and the low probability of conviction, the court ruled in favour of closing the proceedings against the petitioner.
“The bleakness of such conviction must lead to the closure of the proceedings against the petitioner, as the petitioner cannot be made to undergo the rigmarole of trial and the sword of pendency of a criminal case hanging on his head, notwithstanding the fact that he would not be convicted for the offences so alleged against him in the criminal trial,” the court noted.
Ajay had contested two sanction orders issued by the government related to the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, and 409 of the IPC, read with 120B, along with Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, as well as the sanction order issued under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He also challenged the FIR registered by the CBI on February 1, 2020, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in addition to the supplementary charge sheet.