The Enforcement Directorate (ED) Friday contended before the Delhi High Court that a trial court’s order allowing the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation of Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain, arrested in a money laundering case, was contrary to various decisions of the Supreme Court. The ED has challenged the trial court’s May 31 order allowing the presence of a lawyer, at a distance, during Jain’s interrogation in its custody from May 31 till June 9.
Justice Yogesh Khanna, who reserved the order on ED’s plea, declined to stay the trial court’s direction at this stage even as the agency argued that its petition would become infructuous as Jain’s custody with it would come to an end on June 9. The court said before passing the order, it will first go through the record.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, representing the ED, contended that the permission granted by the trial court was contrary to various Supreme Court decisions and that an audio-video recording of the interrogation was being done. He submitted that even though Jain has said he does not want an audio-video recording, the agency has continued doing so despite his objection.
Suppose in a hypothetical case, a person is beaten, his lawyer would say that he was beaten. We would say no. There would be a dispute but if the audio-video recording is there, this cannot happen. It is a better safeguard, he said. The agency said there is no allegation that the AAP leader was threatened or beaten and that his medical checkup is being done twice a day.
The ED’s counsel argued that the lawyer and Jain can make signs to each other and may share information. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Jain, opposed the agency’s plea and said it was an extraordinary case as the prosecution has filed the petition despite the law being 100 per cent against them. He said that the Supreme Court has consistently allowed a system where the lawyer is available at a distance but the prosecution was terming them mere orders.
He termed the petition as an abuse of process of law and said that it be dismissed with costs. They have had a lawyer present during his investigation at a distance for the last few days. It has been going on without any issue. This petition is an abuse of process of law and should therefore be dismissed with costs.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader was arrested on May 30 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the trial court on May 31, remanded him to ED’s custody till June 9. While remanding Jain to ED’s custody, the trial court had allowed his plea that during the time of enquiry/investigation of the accused, one advocate of the accused shall be allowed to remain present at a safe distance where he can see the accused but not hear him.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, had vehemently opposed this in the trial court. The ED has challenged the condition before the high court and submitted that the agency had filed a petition in this regard and urgent listing be allowed. It said that a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in another case was pleased to reject an identical contention of allowing assistance of a counsel during interrogation.
Aggrieved by the impugned direction in the order dated May 31, 2022, to the extent that the special court has directed that the advocate of the respondent be present during the enquiry/interrogation, the petitioner is approaching this court by way of the present petition, the plea said, adding that the trial court has erred in passing such a direction. The ED said the special court has erred in allowing the prayer of the respondent qua the presence of a lawyer during interrogation as the same amounts to interfering with the statutory powers.
It said the order permitting the presence of a lawyer within visible but not audible distance is contrary to the statutory mandate. The plea said the presence of an advocate is not needed as the interrogation is being videographed and the footage will be available therefore there is no possibility of any concern.
The trial court had remanded Jain to ED’s custody till June 9, saying that his interrogation was required to unearth the alleged larger conspiracy. The Solicitor General had argued before the trial court that there was a chequered layer of money and the agency was trying to find out if the accused was laundering somebody else’s money and whether there were other potential beneficiaries.
The money has not stopped at Rs 4.81 crore. It is beyond. Some facts we don’t have, but the accused is aware, the law officer had said, adding that the likelihood of tampering with evidence could not be ruled out till the agency ascertained the real trail. Jain’s counsel had opposed the ED application, saying the case dated back to 2015 and that the entire allegation was the reproduction of the charge sheet, and that the accused had already been summoned five-six times for interrogation by the agency.
He had said there was no requirement for custodial interrogation in the case. The agency had earlier provisionally attached assets worth Rs 4.81 crore of Jain’s family and companies “beneficially owned and controlled” by him as part of a money-laundering probe against him.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment