Will File Chargesheet Against Deepak Talwar Before 1 April: ED
ED will file the chargesheet in a money laundering case before 1 April.
advertisement
Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 28 March, that it will file before April 1 the charge sheet against alleged lobbyist Deepak Talwar in a money laundering case.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Vinod Goel was informed by ED's special public prosecutor D P Singh that Talwar was arrested on January 30, and the 60-day statutory period is about to end.
An accused is entitled to statutory bail if the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within the mandatory period.
The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea which claimed that his arrest and custody from January 30 onwards was illegal detention. He has alleged that his fundamental rights were violated by the authorities. The matter has been listed for April 4.
A habeas corpus petition is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or in court, especially to secure his release, unless lawful grounds are shown for his detention.
The court refused to entertain Talwar's prayer challenging the Constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including the agency's power to arrest and burden of proof.
Central government's standing counsel Amit Mahajan informed the court that the challenge to sections 19 (power to arrest) and 24 (burden of proof) of the PMLA is pending consideration before the apex court.
The bench said the Supreme Court is seized of various pleas challenging the same provisions of the PMLA and when the highest court of the land is hearing the matter, the high court cannot interfere with it.
"Judicial propriety demands that this should refrain from hearing the issue so far as this prayer is concerned as it is pending before the Supreme Court," it said.
Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhri, representing Talwar, said the apex court is seized of the issue but it does not preclude the high court from hearing it as there is no stay restraining the high court from hearing any such petition.
To this, the bench said the top court has not specifically restrained the high court from hearing the matter but judicial propriety demands that it holds back from hearing the issue.
The bench also granted liberty to Talwar to file regular bail application before the trial court during pendency of his petition in the high court and clarified that the trial court should decide the bail plea uninfluenced with the pending plea.
The high court had earlier sought ED's response which said that persons involved in large-scale money laundering and serious financial frauds have made it a practice to challenge various provisions of the PMLA, including the agency's power to arrest.
ED contended that a subterfuge was craftily designed by the "unscrupulous litigants" to bypass the exercise of filing a regular bail plea before the court concerned by directly seeking a habeas corpus writ or bail or anticipatory bail under the garb of challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the PMLA.
It had alleged that Talwar, who was in judicial custody, acted as a middleman in negotiations to favour foreign private airlines, causing loss to national carrier Air India.
The ED had said Talwar was arrested by its competent officers under the PMLA and he was in custody pursuant to a valid remand order passed by a competent court, the jurisdiction of which was not in question, and that the habeas corpus writ was "not maintainable".
Talwar has claimed in his plea that when he was in Dubai, a travel ban was imposed on him by a court there in a commercial dispute, due to which he could not return to India despite repeated requests.
His counsel had earlier contended before the court that the government of India had "abducted" Talwar, adding that he was summoned to appear on February 4, but was picked up and not extradited.
He has sought quashing of the FIR against him under the PMLA and also to declare some provisions of the Act as unconstitutional and in violation of fundamental rights.
ED earlier told a trial court that it needed to interrogate Talwar to get the names of officials of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, National Aviation Company of India Ltd and Air India, who favoured foreign airlines, including the Qatar Airways, Emirates and Air Arabia.
It claimed that entities directly or indirectly controlled by the accused received exorbitant amounts from the Qatar Airways, Emirates and Air Arabia and submitted a chart of total USD 60.54 million received by firms directly or indirectly owned by Talwar between April 23, 2008 and February 6, 2009.
His role in some aviation deals during the previous Congress-led UPA regime is also under the scanner.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)