New Delhi [India], November 20 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed the trial Court proceedings against Senior Congress Leader P Chidambaram in Aircel Maxis Money Laundering Case.
The court also sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding a plea filed by Chidambaram challenging the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the ED against him in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while issued notice to ED, stayed the trail court proceedings and listed the matter for January 2025 for detail hearing.
Chidambaram through Senior Advocate N Hariharan assisted by advocates Arshdeep Singh Khurana And Akshat Gupta stated that trial Court Judge, in the Impugned order, erred in taking cognizance of the of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, without any prior Sanction under Section 197(1), CrPC having been obtained by the Respondent/ED for prosecution of the Petitioner herein, despite the fact that the Petitioner was a public servant (being the Finance Minister) at the time the alleged commission of the alleged offence.
Plea stated that in the Prosecution Complaints dated 13.06.2018 and 25.10.2018 in the Subject Case, the Respondent/ED has alleged that the Petitioner, in his capacity as the then Finance Minister, Government of India, was competent to grant FIPB approval for a total Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) up to Rs. 600 Crore only, and the competent authority to grant approvals exceeding this amount was the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (“CCEA”).
It is alleged that the Petitioner / P Chidambaram allegedly illegally granted FIPB approval for USD 800 million (approx. 3565.91 crores), which as per the case of the Respondent/ED could only have been granted by the CCEA.
As per the allegations levelled by the Respondent/ED in the Prosecution Complaints dated 13.06.2018 and 25.10.2024 against the Petitioner that he was a Public Servant, and the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties as the then Finance Minister, Government of India. Further, Section 65 PMLA makes all provisions of the CrPC applicable to proceedings under the PMLA, including Section 197 CrPC, stated the plea.
Thus, the protection under Section 197(1), CrPC extends to the Petitioner and the Ld. Special Judge erred in taking cognizance of the offence u/s 3 r/w Section 4 of the PMLA as against the Petitioner without the Respondent/ED having obtained previous sanction u/s 197(1), CrPC, plea added. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
