Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In the bail hearing of Hyderabad-business man and accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case Benoy Babu on Thursday, his counsel told the Delhi High Court that “he is just a cog in the wheel”.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, on behalf of Benoy Babu, contended, “It has to be shown that this man who is a small cog in the wheel (Pernod Richard India) was connected knowingly either with (AAP communication in-charge Vijay Nair) or with the south group or within both and he facilitated the conversion of the bribe money into legitimate funds. It has to be shown by ED from the facts of the predicate offence that Babu was knowingly helping one or the other from those set of facts of bribe giving or benefit making. What the ED has said has nothing to do with giving or taking of bribe”.

The senior counsel also stated that unless there is a link between Benoy Babu and the facts of ED’s case, he cannot be guilty in ED's case. If the predicate offence results in an acquittal, this case of ED falls apart, he said. “If I have nothing to do with those bundle of facts, the bribe giver and bribe taker (the South Group and Vijay Nair), if I have no concern over the truck they got into, then I cannot be guilty”, he argued.

“ED case's base is the predicate offence, and it is to be investigated by the CBI only. ED cannot supersede the CBI”, Rohatgi added. “Pernod Richard only gave a corporate guarantee to 5 retailers, what is the connection of this with the 'south Group and Vijay Nair'. The connection is foreign. I am an employee, can I give a bank guarantee of 100-200 crores”, he argued.

Rohatgi also argued that there is no connection with the CBI case at all, as Benoy Babu is a witness in that case, and that he is not an accused in the CBI case. He argued that chargesheets have been filed, Babu is an employee in Pernod Richard; no money had come to him, and no money had gone to him. “This is a case of bail. This man had no criminal antecedents. The trial in this case may take 20 years or so. His detention at present will ultimately become punitive as the trial is going to take a long time to complete”, he contended.

The senior counsel stated that Pernod Richard being one of the stakeholders had made a suggestion to the government with regard to the Delhi Excise Policy. The suggestion was to keep the wholesaler as the Delhi Government, so that in the chain (Manufacturer, Wholesaler, Retailer & Customer) and not to make it completely private, he said, “However, everything was made private, ultimately they scrapped the policy”, he added.

“If I was part of the South Group & Vijay Nair Conspiracy then, I (my company) would not have made such a suggestion. This is the strongest point to clear my name and my company's name, I was not in favor of privatization, wanted the government to remain in between”, Rohatgi concluded.

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma adjourned the matter and listed it for further hearing on April 14 at 3 pm, for submissions of ED’s counsel.

Notably, Babu moved the High Court on February 21, challenging the trial court’s order denying him bail. Binoy worked as a Regional Manager with a liquor company M/S Pernod Ricard and was arrested in November 2022 in connection with the case being investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

It is to be noted that on February 16, the Special Judge MK Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi denied bail to Babu, Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, Sameer Mahendru, and Sarath P Reddy. All of them were arrested by ED in the money laundering case related to the Delhi Liquor scam.

Case Title: Binoy Babu v. ED

Statue: The Code of Criminal Procedure; The Prevention of Money Laundering Act