Arvind Kejriwal and BRS leader K Kavitha

Delhi HC To Hear Tomorrow, PIL Seeking Removal Of Kejriwal As CM

The Delhi High Court will hear a public interest litigation (PIL) praying for the removal of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from holding the post of chief minister of the government of NCT of Delhi on Thursday.

The bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora is scheduled to hear the matter on Thursday.

Recently, a plea stated that Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21, in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam. Prior to the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate, the High Court of Delhi had also refused to pass orders granting interim protection from coercive action to him in the said case.

The plea stated that after the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal, Minister of Govt of NCT of Delhi Atishi gave interviews to various channels on March 21, stating and affirming that Arvind Kejriwal will not resign from his post and, if needed, will run the government from jail. She further said, “Arvind Kejriwal was the Delhi CM, is the CM and will continue to remain the CM, he will not resign, the plea read.

The plea filed by one Surjit Singh Yadav through lawyer Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh stated that the continuance of Arvind Kejriwal as the chief minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam has degraded the credibility and image of the Government of NCT of Delhi in the eyes of the general public.

The continuation of Kejriwal as the Chief Minister of Government of the NCT of Delhi will not only lead to the obstruction of due process of law and disrupt the course of justice but will also lead to the breakdown or the constitutional machinery in the state, the plea stated.

The ED arrested Kejriwal on March 21 in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case linked to a money laundering case and remanded the next day to the ED till March 28.

The case pertains to alleged irregularities and money laundering in framing and implementing the Delhi excise policy case 2022, which was later scrapped. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Arvind Kejriwal Winter Action Delhi Planning Department

Kejriwal Moves Delhi HC Against Arrest

The Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal, on Saturday moved to the Delhi High Court, challenging his arrest and the order of remand passed by the trial court on March 22.

CM Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with the now-scrapped excise policy case.

His legal team said that his plea in Delhi HC stated that both the arrest and the remand order are ‘illegal’ and he is entitled to be released from custody immediately.

An immediate hearing has been sought from the Acting Chief Justice, preferably on Sunday, March 24.

The ED, which was given the custody of Delhi CM till March 28 by the court, has alleged that the Aam Adami Party (AAP) is the major beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated in the alleged liquor scam.

The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday remanded Kejriwal to six days of ED custody in the money laundering case related to the alleged liquor policy scam case till March 28.

Special CBI judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Courts passed the order after Kejriwal was produced today following his arrest last night by the central probe agency. The ED sought 10 days remand of Kejriwal in its custody.

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikram Chaudhari, and Ramesh Gupta, along with Advocates Rajat Bharadwaj, Mudit Jain and Mohd Irshad, appeared for the Delhi CM Kejriwal.

ASG SV Raju and Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain appeared for the probe agency. “Part of the proceeds of crime to the tune of cash of Rs 45 cr approx. has been utilised in the election campaign of AAP in Goa Assembly elections 2022,” the ED alleged.

The agency further claimed that Kejriwal was directly involved in the formation of the excise policy.

“Arvind Kejriwal has also been intrinsically involved in the entire conspiracy of the Delhi liquor Scam wherein the policy was drafted and implemented in a manner wherein certain private persons were favoured and benefitted in a quid pro quo of receiving kickbacks,” the federal agency said in its remand.

It also claimed that due to the actions of Arvind Kejriwal involving excise policy formulation, hatching the conspiracy of kickbacks with the South Group members, and eventually using part of the proceeds of crime generated out of this scheduled offence in the election campaign of AAP for Goa Assembly elections, it is clear it all these activities were not only done with his knowledge but also his active collusion.

Kejriwal was arrested by the central agency late Thursday night on charges of corruption in relation to the case. It is the first time in independent India that a serving Chief Minister has been arrested. The move came after Kejriwal skipped multiple summons by the investigation agency, nine in total, calling them “illegal”.

The case pertains to alleged irregularities and money laundering in framing and implementing the Delhi Excise Policy 2022, which was later scrapped.

While Kejriwal was not named in the FIRs registered by the ED or the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Delhi excise policy case, his name first found a mention in the ED’s chargesheet, wherein the agency claimed that he allegedly spoke to one of the main accused, Sameer Mahendru, in a video call and asked him to continue working with co-accused and AAP communications-in-charge Vijay Nair.

Nair was among the first people to be arrested by the CBI in the case, in 2022. Subsequently, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh were arrested in connection with the case. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Grounds To Presume Accused Instigated Unlawful Assembly

Delhi HC Asks Centre To File Response On Plea Challenging Ban On 23 Dog Breeds

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought a response from the central government on a plea challenging a circular asking all states to ban 23 dog breeds posing dangers to humans.

Justice Subramonium Prasad issued a notice to the Centre. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 9. This petition was filed by Sikander Singh Thakur and others through advocates Nikhil Palli and Kshitij Pal.

However, the court, while admitting the plea, said the government circular was a policy decision.

Justice Prasad said, “We will examine the portion of the circular that mandates that even the current owner shall get their such pets sterilised.”

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the circular was ‘without rationale’.

“A high court issues a notice in this matter while the Karnataka High Court has stayed the circular (banning 23 dog breeds). A detailed response must be filed,” the counsel for the petitioner argued.

The petitioner challenged the circular issued on March 12 by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, asking all states and union territories to ban 23 ‘ferocious’ dog breeds.

The circular sought a ban on the import, breeding, and selling of the breeds, including Pitbull Terrier Tosalnu/ American Staffordshire Terrier Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentine, American Bulldog, Boerboel, Kangal, Central Asian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka)/ Caucasian

Shepherd Dog (ovcharkaJ South Russian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka) Tornja~ Sarplanina~ Japanese Tosa and Akita/ Mastiffs (boerbulls) Rottweiler Terriers/ Rhodesian Ridgebac~ Wolf dogs/ Canario/ Akbash dog/ Moscow Guard dog/ Cane Corso/ and every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog).

The notification or order also imposed a mandate on current owners of the said breeds to forcibly sterilise their pets, thus severely restricting their rights as pet owners and imposing undue hardships on responsible pet caregivers, the plea stated.

It added that the notification lacks scientific basis and is devoid of any research or reports supporting the purported cause of reducing dog bites or enhancing public safety.

The absence of substantiated scientific evidence or justifiable empirical data backing the classification of specific dog breeds as ‘ferocious’ renders the notification arbitrary ab initio, the plea contended.

“By failing to adhere to established scientific protocols or engage in comprehensive research methodologies regarding canine behavior, temperament, and risk factors associated with dog-related incidents, the impugned notification lacks the necessary credibility and

legitimacy required for such regulatory interventions,” it stated.

“Consequently, the arbitrariness inherent in the notification’s formulation casts serious doubt upon its validity and warrants judicial review to ensure adherence to constitutional principles of reasonableness, fairness, and evidence-based policymaking,” the plea added. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal

Delhi HC Refuses To Grant Kejriwal Interim Protection

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused interim protection from coercive action to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and said at this stage it is not inclined to grant interim relief.

The court was hearing a plea by Kejriwal seeking protection from coercive action in connection with the excise policy case.

The bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain passed an interim order on his petition with the main matter listed for July 22, 2024.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Kejriwal, submitted that the summons issued under Section 50 do not even reveal whether the person summoned is a witness, suspect or accused.

Singhvi referred to Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivkumar’s case order to argue for no-coercive action.

He said his client has apprehension that he would be arrested “for political purposes”.

“What prevented you from arresting him, and why are you issuing summonses back-to-back?” the court asked ED during arguments.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju replied that the agency never said that they are going to arrest. “The power is there. You come to join the investigation, we may or may not arrest you.”

Raju opposed the plea on maintainability grounds and submitted that the petition is seeking to quash and set aside all proceedings qua the petitioner in the capacity of his being national convener of a political party.

“But here, AAP has not been made an accused yet and the fact that he’s challenged means that his figment of imagination can’t lead to a grant of relief. A person or entity that has not been made an accused can’t seek to strike down a provision,” Raju said.

On Wednesday, during the hearing in the related matter before the Delhi High Court, Kejriwal’s lawyers stated that they have apprehension that the ED will arrest him and that he is ready to appear if he is given protection.

The Delhi High Court had sought response of the ED on a plea filed by Kejriwal challenging the summons issued to him in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.

During the hearing, the bench asked the Kejriwal lawyers, Why don’t you appear before the Enforcement Directorate? In the reply, Singhvi said that AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh were also arrested by the agency. “We have an apprehension that ED will arrest him; he is ready to appear if he is given protection.”

Kejriwal, through his plea, has sought, the declaration of Section (2) (s) OF PMLA to be ultravires, unconstitutional and arbitrary insofar it is construed to include a political party within its ambit and sweep.

Kejriwal’s plea stated that the present petition is being filed in extremely urgent and emergent circumstances where such arbitrary procedure under PMLA is sought to be employed “to create a non-level playing field for the impending general elections scheduled to be held from April 19, 2024, and to skew the electoral process in the favour of the ruling party at the Centre that controls the ED through the Ministry of Finance”.

The plea said action is being taken in view of the petitioner’s role as a vocal critic of the ruling party and his role as an opposition leader and partner of the INDIA alliance contesting the general election, stated the plea.

“By using such provisions of PMLA for investigation/arrest or threat thereof, E.D., being in control of the Central Government, has been weaponized as a tool to coerce a change in the political landscape of the country in favour of the ruling dispensation,” Kejriwal alleged.

The plea further stated that it is the case of the petitioner that the said impugned summons dated February 26, 2024 and March 16, 2024, were sent to the petitioner with an oblique motive to arrest the petitioner (Kejriwal).

“The investigation in the present matter has been going on since August 22, 2022, i.e., the last one-and-a-half years and after the investigation, as many as six prosecution complaints with thousands of documents have been filed. All necessary documents/ information are already in possession of respondent and summoning the petitioner “in person” is therefore a ploy to illegally arrest him and the present matter is a clear case of malice,” the petition said.

It said since elaborate complaints with thousands of documents are filed by the respondent, it is clear that all relevant material and information is already in the possession of the Directorate of Enforcement.

Last week, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal on two complaints filed by ED for non-compliance with summons issued by the agency. During the hearing, Kejriwal appeared physically before the court.

According to the ED, the agency wants to record Kejriwal’s statement in the case on issues like the formulation of policy, meetings held before it was finalized, and allegations of bribery.

In its sixth charge sheet filed in the case on December 2, 2023, naming AAP leader Sanjay Singh and his aide Sarvesh Mishra, the ED claimed that the AAP used kickbacks worth Rs 45 crore generated via the policy as part of its assembly elections campaign in Goa in 2022.

The now-scrapped excise policy was aimed “at revitalizing the city’s flagging liquor business” and replacing a sales-volume-based regime with a licence fee for traders.

Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena had ordered a probe into alleged irregularities in the policy. AAP has accused Saxena’s predecessor, Anil Baijal, of sabotaging the move with a few last-minute changes that resulted in lower-than-expected revenues.

Two senior AAP leaders, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, are in judicial custody in the case. Sisodia, who was the then Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, was arrested by the CBI on February 26 following several rounds of questioning. On October 5, ED arrested Sanjay Singh, who is a Rajya Sabha member. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Baba Ramdev Acharya Bal Krishan allopathic medicine COVID-19

HC To Pass Judgment On AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan’s Aanticipatory Bail Plea On March 11

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to pass an order on AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan’s anticipatory bail application in the alleged Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case on March 11. His anticipatory bail was earlier dismissed by the trial court.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on March 4 kept the order reserved after hearing the arguments of both sides at length. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Rajat Bhardwaj appeared for Amanat Ullah Khan, while advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Enforcement Directorate in the matter.

According to the petitioner’s lawyers, applicant Amanat Ullah Khan is not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing or any violation of the provisions of the PMLA in any manner. His life and liberty must be protected from unwarranted and unjustified encroachment at the hands of the respondent on the basis of a false, malicious and motivated case without any merit.

Lawyers alleged that the applicant is being targeted by the investigating agency by alleging baseless and frivolous allegations against the applicant. ED has implicated the accused in a false and concocted story and no case is made out against the applicant. There are reasonable grounds believing that the applicant is innocent and has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence.

There is no bribe amount involved, therefore there is no generation of proceeds of crime, which leaves no scope of Applicant’s involvement in any activity of placement, layering, and/or integration of any proceeds of crime and as such, there is no question of any violation of the provisions of the PMLA, argued Amanat’s lawyers.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the ED’s counsel that the petitioner has been issued several summons and he has been evading the same. The Rouse Avenue court on March 1 dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan.

According to the ED, the case is related to the purchase of a property worth Rs 36 crore in the Okhla area on the alleged behest of Amanat Ullah Khan, who is also sitting MLA from that area. In this case, the court has dismissed the bail application of three accused, namely Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir and Jawed Imam Siddiqui.

A charge sheet was recently filed by the ED against four accused persons, including Qausar Imam Siddiqui. It has been alleged that Rs 100 crore Waqf Properties were given on lease illegally. It is also alleged that 32 contractual employees were appointed in Delhi Waqf Board during the chairmanship of Amanat Ullah Khan, flouting the rules. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

The Federation of All India Medical Associations (FAIMA)

SC Orders AAP To Vacate Office On Delhi HC’s Land By June 15

The Supreme Court on Monday gave time to the Aam Aadmi Party till June 15 to vacate its political office located on a plot that was allotted to the Delhi High Court for the purpose of expanding the district judiciary after taking note of the upcoming general election.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also permitted AAP to apply to the Land and Development Office of the Government of India for allotment of the alternate land in accordance with the law in the meantime.

“In view of the impending general elections, we grant time until June 15, 2024, to vacate the premises,” the court said.

During the hearing, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the AAP were

encroachers of land from 2017 onwards. The court also clarified that the party was not a lawful occupant of the land after 2017, which cannot be denied and is giving them the liberty to pursue their rights.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for AAP, apprised the court that they were allotted the land in 2015 by the government of Delhi.

However, CJI commented to the AAP’s counsel that, being part of the court, he can’t say that land cannot be given to the High Court.

AAP’s counsel said that a month before the election, they will be on the road if they vacate the land now. He informed the court that the government is allotting them land far away in Badarpur.

The court remarked that the land belonged to the high court. The senior advocate apprised the court that they were allotted the land in 2015 by the government of Delhi.

Aam Aadmi Party has earlier informed the Supreme Court that it has not not encroached on any land of the court and the premise were officially allotted to the AAP by the Delhi Government for its State Unit Office in 2015

In an application filed before the Supreme Court, AAP has countered the allegations of alleged encroachment of judicial land.

The Supreme Court had earlier expressed its shock when it came to knowing that a political party’s political office is located on a plot that was allotted to the Delhi High Court.

The court was dealing with a matter pertaining to judicial infrastructure across the country.

In the earlier hearing, the Supreme Court issued various directions to the Delhi government in relation to the construction of judicial infrastructure in the national capital.

In pursuance of the order of the top court, a meeting chaired by the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi was convened, which was attended by the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, Principal Secretary (Law), Principal Secretary (PWD), Secretary (Finance), other officers of GNCTD and

L&DO was held in December. Various decisions were taken at the meeting.

The construction of a residential project comprising 70 residential units for judicial officers commenced at Dwarka in October 2014.

The construction, however, came to a standstill due to structural defects, which endangered the

construction.

A report has been submitted by CBRI, Roorkee, highlighting the substandard quality of construction. The project is stalled and there is no other ongoing project for the construction of residential units for judicial officers in Delhi. The final decision in regard to the future course of action in respect of the residential project at Dwarka will have to be taken, the court noted.

The L&DO of the Union government shall take steps to ensure that possession of the vacant area available for the Rouse Avenue Project is handed over to the High Court of Delhi expeditiously and, in any event, by December 31, 2023, the top court also said. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Grounds To Presume Accused Instigated Unlawful Assembly

Delhi Waqf Board: AAP MLA Moves Delhi HC For Anticipatory Bail

Aam Aadmi Party, (AAP) MLA Amanat Ullah Khan approached Delhi High Court for a anticipatory bail in a money laundering case registered against him in connection with alleged irregularities by Delhi Waqf Board in the recruitment of staff and leasing of properties.

On Friday, the trial court denied him bail in Delhi Waqf Board Money Launderig case. He was earlier summoned by the ED in this case.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy along with advocate Rajat Bhardwaj had argued on the bail application on behalf of Amanat Ullah Khan. It was argued by the Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy that this case of Enforcement Directorate (ED) has registered this ECIR after 8 years (7 years 7 months) of CBI’S FIR lodged in 2016.

It has been alleged that Rs. 100 crore Waqf Properties were given on lease illegally. It is also alleged that 32 contractual employees were appointed in Delhi Waqf Board during chairmanship of Amanat Ullah Khan flouting the rules.

Senior advocate argued that the CBI concluded in its charge sheet that leasing out properties was administrative irregularities. There were no proceeds of crime, no undue advantage and loss to government exchequer.

It was also argued that the amount is Rs. 100 crore as similar to the CBI case. They still have to prove a scheduled offence. He was granted bail in CBI case on March 2023, Guruswamy said.

It was also argued that Salaries were paid to the workers for the work done by those employees. No undue advantage by the applicant. No recovery effected from the applicant. It was also submitted that on 28 September 2022, the accused was granted bail in ACB FIR.

It was held in the order, 32 contractual employees were paid Rs. 3 crores salaries through banking channel. No employee repaid the salary to the applicant. It means there is no undue advantage.

“I don’t know how I am (Amanat) involved in this case of sale id property. Till date there is no recovery of any sort. Rs. 27 crore is a big amount. Where is this amount and how this proceeds of crime. I am not even accused in this case,” the counsel argued.

Senior advocate further argued that there is no scheduled offence, no proceeds of crime, therefore there is no money laundering. There is no proceed of crime, no undue advantage, no loss to exchequer, there is no money laundering

” You (ED) can not lodge a new FIR on receipt of any new information. You can not have two FIR for the same cause,” Guruswamy argued

Special public prosecutors (SPP) Manish Jain and Simon Benjamin alongwith Advocate Snehal Sharda appeared for ED.

SPP Manish Jain rebutted the submission made by the senior advocate for Amanat Ullah Khan. He submitted that this entire case banked upon the role of Amanat Ullah Khan.

“At the nucleus of the entire controversy is A K. His name appears 83 times in the bail dismissal order of three accused persons. Order speaks itself,” Jain argued. Money laundering is layering. It is deep rooted conspiracy, he added.

He further argued that the summons issued to the applicant was challenged before the High Court and Prosecution Complaint (Charge Sheet) was also annexed with the petition.

This charge sheet was given to other accused on January 19, after cognizance of the same taken by the court.

The petition was withdrawn as not pressed. No liberty was sought or granted. You are giving up your rights, the SPP submitted.

This fact has been was concealed in this bail application. This is called malicious concealment, Manish Jain submitted.

Senior advocate Guruswamy objected to the submissions of the SPP Manish Jain. We have concealed nothing. Prosecutor can’t use this kind of language. No accused gives up his right of bail. And I am not even accused in this case.

Thereafter the SPP Jain referred to bail orders of three accused.

He submitted that Misappropriated worth Rs.100 crore property. ACB is investigating. Zeeshan and Daud Nasir acted on behest of applicant in connivance with Javed Imam Siddiqui and Qausar Imam Siddiqui, he added.

He again reiterated that at the nucleus of the case is Amanat Ullah Khan. There were 22 cases registered against him

He was declared bad character (BC) of the area and a history sheet was opened. It was challenged before the Delhi high court. The plea was dismissed. Special Leave Petition (SLP) is pending before the Supreme court.

Concluding his arguements Jain said that rigourous provision of twin conditions under section 45 of PMLA applies to the applicant. There is a flight risk. There is great apprehension of influencing the witnesses.

Recently the court has also dismissed the bail application of three arrested accused namely Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir and Jawed Imam Siddiqui. Fourth arrested Qausar Imam Siddiqui has not moved bail yet. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Mahua Moitra

Delhi HC Rejecting Mahua’s Plea Seeking Media Gag

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the plea moved by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra seeking to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from leaking any “confidential or unverified information” to the media concerning the investigation against her under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).

The Delhi HC stated, “This Court has carefully perused the various news articles which have been annexed with the writ petition. The newspaper cuttings do not deal with the private life of the Petitioner but are only reportings regarding the investigation that is being conducted against the Petitioner who is a public figure and same is unrelated to her private life.”

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad also said, “There is nothing in the news articles that would have the effect of invading into the privacy of the Petitioner (Mahua Moitra) or tend to impair the impartiality of the investigation or that it can have the effect of prejudicing the trial of the Petitioner in the event it is initiated.”

Court noted that the statement made by the Counsel for ED that the Advisory on Media Policy issued by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2010 has been and is being followed, and after perusing the news articles, this Court believes that the reliefs as sought for by the Petitioner by way of the present writ petition need not be granted at this stage and the writ petition is dismissed.

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra’s plea to restrain the Enforcement Directorate from allegedly leaking any confidential, unverified information to media related to the ongoing FEMA probe against her.

Advocate Siddhant Kumar, who appeared for ANI, contended before the High Court that the reporting concerning a public figure regarding acts committed as a public official. It is the right of the press to report on the conduct of public officials such as Mahua Moitra who is also seeking to contest the next general election.

During the hearing, ED told the court it had not leaked any information to the media. How the information about her being summoned came to the press, we are not aware, said the ED counsel.

Mahua Moitra had moved Delhi High Court sought direction to restrain ED and 19 media houses from leaking, broadcasting and disseminating any “confidential or unverified information” concerning ED’s investigation against her regarding proceedings under FEMA.

The plea alleged that ED has wilfully and maliciously leaked the details of the FEMA summons, as well as the response submitted by the Petitioner to the 14 February Summons and sensitive details of allegations being investigated against the Petitioner.

It appears that ED intends to subject the Petitioner to a media trial by leaking sensitive particulars, including salacious allegations, allegedly stemming from their ongoing investigation and thereby, not only prejudice the investigation into the matter but also tarnish the Petitioner’s reputation in the public eye.

Instead of undertaking a fair, transparent and ethical investigation into the alleged violations of the FEMA by the Petitioner, it appears that ED is pursuing efforts to vilify the Petitioner in the public eye by deliberately and consistently drip-feeding members of the media with every single detail of the investigation being conducted by ED against the Petitioner, plea read. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Grounds To Presume Accused Instigated Unlawful Assembly

Delhi HC Issues Notice To ED On Sanjay Singh’s Bail Plea

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a regular bail plea moved by Aam Aadmi Party’s senior leader Sanjay Singh in a money laundering case related to an alleged Delhi excise policy scam case.

Sanjay Singh was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the case on October 4, 2023.

The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma while seeking a response from ED, fixed January 29, 2023, for the next date of hearing.

Sanjay Singh through plea stated that he is neither an accused nor a suspect in a scheduled/predicate offence (CBI Offence), wherein, the investigation has been continuing since 17.8.2022 and despite 3 Charge-Sheets/ Supplementary Charge-Sheets having been filed, absolutely nothing has surfaced against him till date.

Bail Plea further stated that at the outset, the Applicant states that the Applicant is not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing or any violation of the provisions of the PMLA in any manner whatsoever and therefore, the Applicant’s life and liberty must be protected from unwarranted and unjustified encroachment at the hands of the DoE based on a false, malicious and motivated case without any merit.

On December 22, 2023, the trial court dismissed his bail and said, “The Court is of prima facie view that the case against him is genuine. Evidence shows his involvement in the alleged offence of money laundering. There are reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of the alleged offence of money laundering.”

Special Judge MK Nagpal expressed his prima facie view and said, “The evidence and material show involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence of money laundering because he is shown to have been, directly or indirectly, involved in the process or activities connected with proceeds of crime generated through the scheduled offences case of CBI.”

The court further said, ” The evidence and material are also sufficient to furnish this court reasonable grounds for believing that he is ‘guilty’ of the said offence in terms of provisions contained Under section 45 of the PMLA. It can be said that the conditions laid down by section 45 for the grant of bail are not satisfied.

While dismissing the bail application, the court had also said that it had approved by the Supreme Court that bribes in connection with the formulation of the Delhi excise policy were paid.

“It can also be observed by this court that the basic case of ED in the present ECIR stands approved upto the Supreme Court and it has been endorsed by the Apex Court that the bribe or kickbacks in connection with formulation of excise policy of the GNCTD for the year 2020 21 was/were paid and it was so approved by rejection of bail application of accused Manish Sisodia on merits by their Lordships of the said court,” special judge MK Nagpal said in the order.

The court had also said that even the bail applications of various other accused arrested in this case, namely Sameer Mahandru, Amit Arora, Vijay Nair, Arun Ramachandran Pillai, Amandeep Dhall and Abhishek Boinpally, have already been dismissed by this court in light of their involvement with the process and different activities relating to the said proceeds of crime and bail applications of some of these accused are now stated to be pending before the Supreme Court or before the High Court.

Thus, the observations made by this court regarding the interpretation of provisions of Section 45 and 50 of the PMLA, while dismissing the said bail application based on the legal position stated above, have yet not been overturned or set aside either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court, Special judge clarified in the order.

The special judge also noted that reliance was placed on the above order of the Supreme Court granting bail to the accused Benoy Babu in this case.

The court said that even in the said order of the Honorable Apex Court no contrary observations regarding the interpretation of the said provisions are found to have been made and even no parity can be drawn therefrom qua the applicant as the said accused was in custody in this case for the last around 13 months and his case on merits is also stated to have been different.

It was submitted by the Counsel for Sanjay Singh that no recovery of any part or portion of the amount of Rs. 2 crores allegedly paid to the applicant has been effected from his possession or even from his residence during such proceedings dated 04.10.2023. The court said that this is not material as such recovery is not always necessary to be effected.

It was also the submission of Senior Counsel that besides the above oral and documentary evidence, there is no other documentary evidence to show the trail connecting the applicant with the alleged proceeds of crime.

The court rejected the submission and said that even this submission of Senior Counsel cannot be given any weight at this stage as no such further documentary evidence constituting the trail thereof could have been possible to be collected or recovered by the investigating agencies since the alleged transactions constituting the generation of proceeds of crime were made in cash only and not through any documentary or electronic mode.

The court also rejected the submission of Senior Counsel for the applicant that the statements of the approver should not be considered as the same has been given by him under an inducement from or the influence of ED officials and on a promise of being tendered a pardon in case he gives an incriminating statement against some big politicians of AAP including the applicant.

The court said that even these submissions of Senior Counsel cannot be accepted at this stage. There is nothing to show from the record that the approver had acted under any coercion or influence of the ED officials.

The court also said that besides the evidence and material collected by ED in respect to delivery and payment of an amount of Rs 2 crores to the applicant by the approver Dinesh Arora, it has also been alleged that the applicant is even found to have played an important role towards the formulation of the excise policy of the GNCTD for the year 202021, i.e. previous to the year 2021- 22 in respect to which these cases were originally registered, and it is being stated that during the investigation, recovery of one unsigned MoU of 18.06.2020 has been effected.

The said MoU was to be executed between accused Amit Arora, approver Dinesh Arora and one Vivek Tyagi and it is alleged that through this MoU and some other related activities, an attempt was made by the applicant to generate proceeds of crime to offences committed in respect to the above said previous policy, the court noted.

It was stated that Vivek Tyagi was attempted to be inducted as a dummy partner by the applicant in the above firm named Aralias Hospitality belonging to the accused Amit Arora and a share of twenty per cent was sought to be secured for this dummy associate of the applicant.

The court observed, “It was done in lieu of extending favours to the accused Amit Arora in connection with formulation and implementation of the said policy for the previous year 2020-21, though, somehow, the said attempt could not succeed.

The statements of approver Dinesh Arora accused Amit Arora and witness Ankit Gupta, who was working as CA of approver Dinesh Arora, are being referred to this aspect along with statements of some other witnesses.

The court further said that it is also gathered from the above statements that though initially the above entity was sought to be created with only two partners, namely the approver Dinesh Arora and accused Amit Arora, the name of Vivek Tyagi was added later on and the statements of approver and the above other accused further show that it was done at the instance of this applicant only.

It is alleged by the agency that Vivek Tyagi is the current Personal Assistant of the applicant, the court noted in the order. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Grounds To Presume Accused Instigated Unlawful Assembly

Asiya Andrabi Moves To Delhi HC Against Refusal Of Examination Of Defence Witness

Kashmiri separatist leader Asiya Andrabi and two others moved an appeal in Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order refusing the examination of defence witness summoned in relation to a case registered under several sections of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and UA(P) Act. 

The bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal on Wednesday fixed the matter for hearing on September 14, 2023. 

According to the appeal, appellants earlier moved an application under section 233(1) CrPC for summoning two defence witnesses namely United Nations Resident Co-ordinator and Registrar General, Supreme Court through Record Clerk along with documents. 

Later the court during the course of examining summoned defence witness was pleased to refuse further examination of the said witness holding that the certified copies of the document sought to be brought on record are sub-judice before the Supreme Court and the same could not have been provided as the appellant herein is not a party in the said proceedings, stated the appeal copy. 

Kashmiri separatist Aasiya Andrabi and her two associates Sofi Fehmeeda and Nahida Nasreen were arrested by National Investigation Agency (NIA) for allegedly waging war against the Country, sedition and conspiracy to commit acts of terror in the country.

According to the investigation agency the case relates to allegedly waging war against the country with support from Pakistan, including terror entities there.

The trial Court earlier put Andrabi and her associates on trial for various offences punishable under IPC and the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). They were arrested in April 2018

The trial Court earlier also framed charges under UAPA sections 18 (conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites terror act), 20 (being a member of terrorist gang or organisation), 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation) and 39 (offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation). (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/