New Delhi, May 13: Businessman Robert Vadra has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order that took cognisance of the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint and summoned him in connection with the Shikohpur land deal-linked money laundering case.
The matter is listed for hearing before Justice Manoj Jain on May 14.
Recently, the Rouse Avenue issued a summons to Vadra while taking cognisance of the chargesheet/prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate in the case.
While taking cognisance, the trial court noted the allegations levelled against Vadra and observed that offences under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) had also been alleged against companies in which he was stated to be the primary director or partner. The court observed that, as per the allegations, Section 70 of the PMLA would make him liable to be proceeded against in the capacity of director/partner.
The court also took note of allegations against accused Kewal Singh, observing that he was allegedly aware of the non-encashment of the cheque and the payment of stamp duty by OPPL, and had knowingly assisted in the generation and laundering of proceeds of crime.
The trial court observed that the allegations in the prosecution complaint and the material relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate disclosed sufficient material at that stage to proceed with the complaint and summon the accused persons, including Vadra.
However, regarding the role of Satyanand Yajee, the court observed that there was "absolutely no material" to proceed against him or initiate process against him.
On allegations concerning DLF Limited, the court observed that the investigation was still pending and said it would not be appropriate to comment on the merits of the allegations at this stage.
The court further observed that Vadra was stated to be a resident of Delhi and that the registered offices of the companies involved were also situated in Delhi. It additionally noted allegations that the banking transactions through which money was allegedly laundered took place within Delhi, as the relevant bank accounts were located there.
Based on these allegations, the court held that the Rouse Avenue Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
The court also rejected the contention that proceedings under the PMLA should await completion of the investigation into the predicate offence. It observed that proceedings under the PMLA are independent of the predicate offence and cannot be deferred merely because investigation in the scheduled offence is still pending.
"There is no legal embargo on the court for proceeding further with the prosecution complaint despite the fact that the chargesheet of the predicate offence has not been filed and it is still under investigation," the trial court had observed. (ANI)
