|
Union Minister Pralhad Joshi on Thursday condemned Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, and Congress MP Sonia Gandhi over the National Herald case, saying that the paper having "more advertising revenue than any established newspaper," is in itself suspicious.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday Joshi said that the Congress leaders are on bail, but under scrutiny. "They have more advertising revenue than any established newspaper, which in itself is a scam. The so-called owners Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in the scam are under scrutiny, and are currently on bail," Joshi said. Earlier in December 2025, the Delhi High Court, after hearing detailed submissions by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), issued notice to all respondents, including Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, on the ED's appeal challenging the trial court order that declined to take cognisance of its money-laundering complaint in the National Herald case. The Court has scheduled a further hearing on March 12, 2026. Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard the matter. Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta placed a detailed factual chronology before the Court. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and RS Cheema represented the Gandhi family during the proceedings. Addressing the Court, the Solicitor General argued that the trial court erred in law by failing to appreciate that cognisance taken by a competent court on a private complaint carries a higher legal standing than a mere FIR, where cognisance may still be refused even after a chargesheet is filed. He submitted that in the present matter, cognisance of the private complaint constituting the scheduled offence had already been taken by a competent court and upheld up to the Supreme Court, placing it on a far firmer footing than a simple police FIR. Mehta further contended that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not prescribe the mode or manner in which a scheduled offence must be registered. What is required under the statute, he said, is the existence of an allegation of criminal activity relating to a planned offence, without mandating that it must arise from an FIR rather than a criminal complaint. Emphasising that the issue warrants examination, he stated that he was prepared to satisfy the Court and sought the issuance of notice. During the hearing, the Court asked whether cognisance had been taken of the private complaint after the complainant was examined. The Solicitor General informed the bench that witnesses had also been examined. He urged that the matter be finally adjudicated on the return date and requested that it be heard. However, Senior Advocate Singhvi stated that some respondents are yet to be served notices. (ANI)
|
