Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

51 MPs, 71 MLAs/MLCs Accused Under PMLA, 121 Cases Pending Against MPs/MLAs Before CBI Courts: Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
25 Aug 2021 3:46 AM GMT
51 MPs, 71 MLAs/MLCs Accused Under PMLA, 121 Cases Pending Against MPs/MLAs Before CBI Courts: Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court
x

A report was submitted before the Supreme Court yesterday by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who was appointed as the amicus curiae in the case concerning speedy disposal of cases against lawmakers.Relying on the status report submitted to him on August 9, 2021 by the Union of India, Hansaria submitted that a total of 51 MPs and 71 MLAs/MLCs are accused in cases arising out of offences...

A report was submitted before the Supreme Court yesterday by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who was appointed as the amicus curiae in the case concerning speedy disposal of cases against lawmakers.

Relying on the status report submitted to him on August 9, 2021 by the Union of India, Hansaria submitted that a total of 51 MPs and 71 MLAs/MLCs are accused in cases arising out of offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 

The Amicus' report further highlights that 19 cases against MPs and 24 cases against MLAs/ MLCs are glaring cases of inordinate delay, as evident from a a thorough analysis of the report so submitted.

Also, out of 121 cases pending trial before the Special Courts, CBI, as many as 58 cases are punishable with life imprisonment. In 45 cases, even the charges have not been framed, though the offences alleged to have been committed several years back, the Court was told.

Suggestions for disposal of cases investigated by ED and CBI:

1. Courts before whom the trials are pending may be directed to expedite the trial of the all pending cases on day to day basis in terms of section 309 CrPC.
2. High Courts may be directed to issue administrative instructions to the effect that the concerned Courts dealing with cases investigated by CBI and Enforcement Directorate shall deal with the cases pending before MPs/MLAs on priority basis and other cases shall be dealt only after the trial in these cases are over.
3. High Courts may be requested to hear the cases where interim orders have been passed within a time frame.
4. Cases where investigations are pending before the Enforcement Directorate and CBI, a Monitoring Committee may be constituted to evaluate the reasons for the delay in investigation and to issue appropriate directions to the concerned Investigating Officer to ensure early completion of the investigation.

The report, filed through Advocate Sneha Kalita, also dealt with status reports filed by different high courts about pendency of cases against MPs/MLAs in their jurisdiction.

While analyzing the status reports submitted by various states, the amicus in his report has made suggestions with regard to expediting the trial and for speedy disposal of cases.

Withdrawal of cases under Section 321 CrPC:

Amicus Hansaria submitted that as per the information furnished by Standing Counsel for the State of UP, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi a total of 510 cases, relating to Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013 were registered in five districts of Meerut Zone against 6,869 accused.

Out of these 510 cases, in 175 cases the charge sheet was filed, in 165 cases final reports were submitted and  170 cases were expunged. Thereafter 77 cases were withdrawn by the State Government under section 321 of Cr.P.C. The Government Orders do not give any reasons for withdrawal of the case under section 321 of CrPC. It merely states that the administration after full consideration has taken a decision to withdraw the particular case, the Amicus submitted.

It was further stated that the Karnataka government had granted permission for withdrawal of 62 cases.

Furthermore, 4 cases were withdrawn in Tamil Nadu, 14 in Telangana and 36 in Kerala under the said provision.

Hansaria stated that withdrawal from prosecution under section 321 CrPC was permissible in public interest and cannot be done for political consideration. In view of the repeated misuse of power by the State in withdrawing prosecution for political and extraneous considerations, the following suggestions were made with respect to exercise of power under section 321 CrPC-

a. The appropriate Government may issue instructions to the public prosecutor only if the Government, in a given case, is of the opinion that the prosecution was launched maliciously and there is no foundation for prosecuting the accused.
b. Such an order can be passed for reasons to be recorded for each individual case by the Home Secretary of the concerned State.
c. No general order can be passed for withdrawal of prosecution of any category of persons or offences committed during a particular period.

All the cases which have been withdrawn under section 321 CrPC after the order of Supreme Court dated 16.09.2020 may be examined by the respective High Courts by exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 401 CrPC in the light of the aforementioned suggestions, the report adds.

Click Here To Read/ Download Amicus Curiae Report



Next Story