National Herald Case: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On ED's Challenge To Refusal Of Cognizance Against Rahul, Sonia Gandhi

The Delhi High Court on Monday (December 22) issued notice on a plea filed by Enforcement Directorate challenging a trial court order refusing to take cognizance of the money laundering complaint in the National Herald case allegedly involving Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi.Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted before Justice Ravinder Dudeja that the trial court order brings the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on its head. Mehta said, "Ultimate conclusion is that for an amount of (Rs.) 50 Lakh, the accused got property worth (Rs.) 2000 crore...We are at stage where predicate offence cognizance is taken".He said that the challenge to the said cognizance was rejected till the Supreme Court.Mehta said, "After investigation, we gather evidence and material. Like police filing a report, ED files a prosecution complaint. The argument was ED offences can be taken cognizance only if predicate offence is by way of an FIR. The predicate offence is taken cognizance of. Challenge is rejected. We wait for special court to take cognizance of prosecution complaint but court declines on ground that initial investigation of predicate offence didn't start with an FIR. Please see PMLA. How the court has gone horribly wrong. This would affect other cases also".The SGI further said that there has to be an allegation, criminal activity which must pertain to the predicate offence. He further said that the criminal complaint stems on much higher footing than FIR. "...suppose there is non cognizable offence, I have to go before competent court, i cant file an FIR. There are several sections which are non cognizable, i cant file FIR. The law prevents me. This would need examination. Thats what I am highlighting. The competent court will have options and thereafter take cognizance. It can also direct police to investigate. I have undertaken an exercise. These are scheduled offences. The order says if its not (an) FIR generated predicate offence, ED can do nothing. Some of offences in law cannot be FIR generated," Mehta added. The SGI submitted that the trial court had said that "only FIR can result in ED offence even if court take cognizance after recording findings that prima facie case is made out (qua predicate offence)". Mehta said that if a notice can go on the ED's plea the matter can be fixed for final hearing. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Rahul Gandhi said,"I want to say something. I am only saying that there is a perspective which is contrary to what my learned friend is saying".To which Mehta said that is why notice is required.The court thereafter orally said, "I would just record his submissions and issue notice. Just a suggestion, notice on petition as also stay application with liberty to file a rejoinder".The court thereafter issued notice on the main petition and the interim application and listed the matter on March 12. ED has challenged the order passed by Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Courts on December 16.The trial court had held that the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the Gandhis was not maintainable in law, as it was not founded on an FIR relating to a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).It had noted that the money laundering proceedings were based on a cognisance and summoning order passed on a private complaint filed under Section 200 CrPC by Dr Subramanian Swamy, and not on an FIR.Also Read: Why Delhi Court Dismissed ED's Complaint Against Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi In National Herald CaseThe ED had filed a fresh prosecution complaint against Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi under sections 44 and 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 for commission of offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 read with section 70 and punishable under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.The controversy centers around the acquisition of Associated Journals Limited (AJL), the publisher of the now-defunct National Herald newspaper.In 2010, a newly formed company, Young Indian Pvt Ltd (YIL), acquired AJL's debts from the Indian National Congress for ₹50 lakh.Subsequently, YIL took control of AJL's assets, which were valued at over ₹2,000 crore. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi held a majority stake in YIL, leading to allegations that they used party funds to gain control of AJL's valuable properties.The ED's investigation, initiated in 2014, focused on the financial transactions between the Congress party, AJL, and YIL.The agency alleges that the Gandhis and other Congress leaders engaged in a scheme to misappropriate AJL's assets for personal gain.Recently, the ED has moved to take possession of properties linked to AJL, valued at approximately ₹661 crore, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Title: ED v. Sonia Gandhi & Anr

National Herald Case: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On ED's Challenge To Refusal Of Cognizance Against Rahul, Sonia Gandhi

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags