look news india
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed the proceedings in the lower court in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has issued a notice to ED on Chidambaram’s petition and sought its reply. The next hearing of the case will be on December 22.
Chidambaram has challenged the trial court’s order to take cognizance of the charge sheet. The Congress leader has demanded to stop the action.
The entire matter is related to irregularities in granting approval by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) to the Aircel-Maxis deal. This approval was given in 2006 when Chidambaram was the Union Finance Minister.
Court replied to ED sought
The court also sought response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Chidambaram’s plea challenging the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the ED in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case.
A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri issued notice to the ED, stayed the trial court proceedings and listed the case for January 2025 for detailed hearing.
Chidambaram, through senior advocate N Hariharan assisted by advocates Arshdeep Singh Khurana and Akshat Gupta, said the trial court judge had erred in taking cognizance of the offense under Section 3 of the PMLA, which is punishable under Section 4, in the conviction order. . The prosecution of the petitioner herein was obtained by the respondent/ED without any prior sanction under PMLA, Section 197(1), CrPC. This is despite the fact that the petitioner was a public servant (being the Finance Minister) at the time of the alleged offence.
The petition states that in the prosecution complaints dated 13.06.2018 and 25.10.2018, the respondent/ED has alleged that the petitioner had received Foreign Direct Investment in his capacity as the then Finance Minister of the Government of India. (FDI) FIPB was competent to approve FDI. The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) was the competent authority to approve amounts exceeding Rs 600 crore.
It is alleged that the petitioner
As per the allegations leveled against the petitioner by the respondent/ED in the prosecution complaints dated 13.06.2018 and 25.10.2024, he was a public servant, and the alleged offense was committed in the discharge of his duties as Finance Officer. The Indian Government minister had claimed to do the work. Further, Section 65 PMLA makes all provisions of the CrPC applicable to proceedings under PMLA, including Section 197 CrPC, the petition said.
Thus, the petitioner and LD have been given protection under Section 197(1) of CrPC. The petition states that the Special Judge erred in taking cognizance of the offense under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA against the petitioner without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197(1) of the CrPC from the respondent/ED.
