|
Congress MP and former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram on Sunday called the National Herald matter a fabricated, a politically motivated case.
Addressing a press conference at Chennai's Satyamurthy Bhavan, Chidambaram alleged that the Enforcement Directorate has engaged in illegal actions. He asked how anyone could determine whether a transaction is legal or illegal when there is no money trail. "It is a fabricated and politically motivated case... The Enforcement Directorate has committed a grave error. In fact, it has itself engaged in illegal actions... When there is no money transaction at all, how can anyone claim it is legal or illegal?... There is no information yet that the government has filed an appeal. If they proceed with an appeal, it only shows a lack of wisdom," said Chidambaram. Earlier, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) approached the Delhi High Court to challenge the Rouse Avenue Court's order declining to take cognisance of its money-laundering complaint against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the National Herald case. The appeal follows a detailed order passed on Tuesday by Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts, who declined to take cognisance of the ED's prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the absence of an FIR. However, while declining cognisance, the court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations. The trial court held that a money-laundering prosecution cannot be sustained in the absence of an FIR in the scheduled (predicate) offence and cannot be founded solely on a private complaint and a summoning order. The trial court ruled that proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, Young Indian, Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd and others were legally unsustainable, as the ED's case was based on a private complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order passed on it in 2014, rather than on a duly registered FIR. Observing that the investigative potential of an FIR is "qualitatively superior" to that of a complaint case under Section 200 of the CrPC (now Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the court held that registration of an FIR in the predicate offence is a foundational jurisdictional requirement for the ED to initiate money-laundering proceedings, register an ECIR and file a prosecution complaint. While declining cognisance, the court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations. It recorded that a subsequent FIR was registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Delhi, on October 3, 2025, during the pendency of the proceedings. It held that both the ED and the EOW are free to pursue further investigation in accordance with the law. However, the prosecution's complaint as presently filed was held to be legally untenable. (ANI)
|
