Kapil Sibal Down With Covid; Karti Chidambram Bail Plea on June 24
Delhi High Court has postponed Karti Chidambram's pre arrest bail plea in money laundering case to June 24, as Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, who represents the Congress MP has come with COVID -19
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved order on the anticipatory bail plea moved by Congress MP Karti P Chidambaram in a money laundering case registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with alleged Chinese vivas scam. Justice Poonam A. Bamba reserved the order after hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Karti Chidambaram whereas ASG SV Raju appeared for ED.
Background
Karti Chidambaram had approached the Delhi High Court after he was denied anticipatory bail by Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court on June 3.The Trial Court had rejected his plea along with two others after observing that the offence alleged was of a very serious nature. The Court had also vacated the interim protection from arrest granted during the pendency of proceedings.
The FIR was registered by the CBI on allegations that, “Smt. Indrani Mukerjea, Director and Sh. Pratim Mukerjea, Chief Operating Officer of INX Media entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sh. Karti P. Chidambram, Director, Chess Management Services and in pursuance of such conspiracy, penal actions arising out of illegal acts committed by INX Media in receiving excess Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) than the amount approved by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) and unauthorized downstream investment by INX Media in INX News without the approval of FIPB, were got scuttled by Sh. Karti P. Chidambram by influencing the public servants of FIPB Unit, Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) Ministry of Finance (MoF), by virtue of his relations with Sh. P. Chidambram,the then Union Finance Minister. It was alleged that in pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy and under the influence of Sh. Karti P. Chidambram and Sh. P. Chidambram, these unknown officers / officials of the MoF had abused their official positions and had caused undue favours to INX Media and as a consideration for such acts of favoritism, INX Media had paid huge amounts to some companies in which Sh. Karti P. Chidambram had a substantial interest, directly or indirectly.”
Further investigation of the said case also revealed that four more fake invoices in the names of four other companies for different amounts, totalling to approximately US$ 700,000 (equivalent to Rs.3.2 crores), in the month of September, 2008 were also raised on INX Media.
“… a charge sheet for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and under Sections 9 and 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof on the part of concerned accused persons was ultimately filed by the CBI before this court on 17.10.2019 against total 14accused persons, including the accused Karti P. Chidambaram, P.Chidambaram, Pratim @ Peter Mukerjea, S. Bhaskaran Raman, INX Media, INX News, ASCPL, ASCSPL, CMSPL and some other officials / officers of the concerned ministry involved in commission of alleged offences. However, Smt. Indrani Mukerjea was not chargesheeted in the said case as she had been granted a pardon and was made an approver in the case.”- stated the complaint.
Arguments in Court
During the course of hearing, Sibal argued that while the allegation in the FIR was that cheque was converted into cash and given to Bhaskararaman, there was nothing on record to show the same in any of the documents.
"What happened to that cash is not reflected anywhere," Sibal added.
Sibal argued that there was no allegation that any money was paid to Karti Chidambaram or that Bhaskararaman had paid the whole amount of Rs. 50 lakhs to him. He also submitted that there was no overt act attributed to Karti including the fact that there was no allegation that he used or influenced any public servant.
"There is no allegation that the petitioner singly or with anyone else met any public servant or induced the public servant. How he is attracted under sec. 8 and 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act is anybody's guess. There is no allegation of conspiracy showing as to how sec. 120B of IPC can be attracted but I'll argue that matter before the CBI (Court)," Sibal said.
Sibal submitted that the reasoning of the Trial Court is based on pure speculation. He also argued that in the CBI case, Karti has already been given protection in view of Trial Court's order directing agency to give a 3 days notice in the event of his arrest.
"In this case, as far as PMLA is concerned, there can be no proceeds of crime. If the money has yet not reached me, how can I launder it? It's nobody's case that it has reached me. How does sec. 3 of PMLA apply? First they have to show that money has reached Bhaskararaman in cash. They haven't taken any statement of Home Secretary who granted approval. They don't know who was the public servant, who influenced it, what is the conspiracy?," Sibal argued.
He concluded by arguing that Karti was not a flight risk and that in the other matters, he had been granted permission to travel and has even cooperated with the agency by going thrice after the CBI called him.
On the other hand, ASG SV Raju questioned the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea and argued that the same was filed prematurely.
He argued that the provision of anticipatory bail confers concurrent powers and not appellate powers on the Court and that Sibal was arguing as if it was an appeal challenging the Trial Court order.
"Today, the trial court judgment is not under challenge. He could gave filed a petition under sec. 482 or 226. There is no such challenge in the prayer. The trial court judgment isn't challenged. The argument that the Trial court was wrong is immaterial. He has to make out a case of anticipatory bail independently or irrespective of the reasoning of trial court. Reasoning of trial court is immaterial in case of concurrent jurisdiction," Raju argued.
Cause Title:- Karti Chidambaram v. ED