|
The Delhi High Court on Friday issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the plea of Lakshay Vij, who is a charge-sheeted accused in the Trans Cyber cheating case.
Vij has challenged an order passed by the trial court rejecting his plea seeking the opportunity to be heard on the point of cognizance in terms of proviso to Section 223, BNSS, 2023. Justice Vikas Mahajan issued a notice to ED and sought a response. The matter has been listed on January 22 for further hearing. Lakshay Vij has moved an application through advocate Prabhav Ralli against the order of January 4, 2025, passed by the special judge at Rouse Avenue Courts. ED has filed a prosecution complaint (chargesheet) against Vij. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa and advocate Prabhav Ralli appeared for Lakshay Vij. It was submitted by the counsel that after the filing of the prosecution complaint on September 19, 2024, Vij had filed an application seeking the opportunity to be heard on the point of cognizance in terms of the proviso to Sec. 223, BNSS, 2023. The same was rejected by the court. It is also submitted that as per provisions of Sec. 223, BNSS, 2023 to PMLA, 2002, it is the sacrosanct right of the accused, in cases instituted upon a complaint, to be heard at the time of cognizance. The Enforcement Directorate had registered a case in the matter on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI. The plea has mentioned that the Central Bureau of Investigation, International Operations Division, registered on July 4, 2023 for the commission of alleged offences under 120-B read with 419 and 420 of IPC. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant was not named in the aforesaid FIR. It is also mentioned that the ED had recorded an ECIR on December 4, 2023, under sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. The petitioner was arrested by the ED on July 7, 2024, and the prosecution complaint was filed on September 9, 2024. It is submitted that on January 5, the trial court rejected the plea of the petitioner while holding that the proviso to Sec. 223, BNSS, 2023 would not apply to a complaint under the PMLA, 2002, and proceeded to list the matter for arguments on cognizance from the side of the prosecution on January 18. (ANI)
|
