Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, showing for Shivakumar, argued there was neither any attachment of assets in the scenario nor any proceeds of criminal offense in conditions of the Prevention of Income Laundering Act.
“Why have they waited for two several years to move forward in the issue? They knew of these information in 2020…. Due to the fact the elections are in Could. I can recognize if there was some activity I was indulging in and it needed to be read currently and hence this matter has to be made a decision,” Sibal argued in advance of a bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Poonam A. Bamba.
When added solicitor normal SV Raju dubbed the submission as “unfounded”, Sibal retorted expressing it was “derivative logic”. “I am only stating a truth. Rest is spinoff logic,” he mentioned.
The court docket was hearing Shivakumar’s petition trying to find quashing of the overall investigation like summons issued to him in the (Enforcement Circumstance Info Document) ECIR registered by the ED in 2020. He has contested the ED’s action on numerous grounds like that the agency was re-investigating the very same offense which it experienced now probed in a previous case it had lodged in 2018.
The court docket mentioned it was “hearing the make a difference at last” alternatively of first dealing with the difficulty of interim relief. Shivakumar has sought security from coercive action as an interim relief.
In its submissions submitted by way of attorneys Mayank Jain, Parmatma Singh and Madhur Jain, the Congress chief explained the current investigation constituted a 2nd established of proceedings versus him, and was an abuse of the process of regulation and a malafide exercise of electrical power.
The ED has opposed the petition claiming the two ECIRs lodged by the anti-cash laundering company pertain to distinctive scenarios with particular overlapping of points which cannot be termed as re-investigation.
The ED has mentioned in its counter affidavit that the two ECIRs against the petitioner are based on diverse established of information and even the scheduled offense in the two the circumstances are distinctive and the quantum of proceeds of crime associated is also diverse.
“…the allegation manufactured in the complaint of the Cash flow Tax division and FIR of CBI depict various modes of generation of the crime proceeds and that position of diverse accused persons might occur into light, therefore the petitioner can’t declare that he has currently been investigated of the exact same offence,” the affidavit has said.
The ED, in its reply, claimed that as for each the initial ECIR, the scheduled offense is area 120B IPC and the quantum of proceeds of criminal offense recorded therein is Rs 8.59 crore.
The existing ECIR is relevant to amassing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs 74.93 crore and emanates from a separate FIR of the CBI lodged in Bangalore on October 3, 2020 beneath the Avoidance of Corruption Act, it has stated.
It stated on the foundation of preliminary inquiry accomplished by the CBI, ACB, Bangalore, it was found that Shivakumar and his family are in possession of property disproportionate to their identified sources of profits all through the test interval April 1, 2013 to April 30, 2018 .
The ED affidavit added it is perfectly settled that at the stage of investigation it is premature to just take the plea of double jeopardy and that it is wholly impermissible in a petition tough the constitutional validity of sure provisions of the exclusive act to go the interim orders in the mother nature of closing anticipatory bail.
In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural protection that prevents an accused from being tried once again on the same prices right after conviction or acquittal.
Shivakumar had previously argued that there can be no situation for the offense of funds laundering on allegations of disproportionate property.
In the plea, the Congress leader has submitted the next established of proceedings is a “complete abuse of system of legislation and malafide training of powers”. He reported the proceedings also violate the constitutional provisions relevant to double jeopardy.
“The overall facet of disproportionate assets allegedly acquired by the petitioner when he was minister/MLA in the state of Karnataka was extensively investigated by the respondent in the very first ECIR and as a result, the initiation of independent proceedings on the exact established of points and substances of The offense is impermissible in legislation and quantities to malafide workout of electricity by the respondent,” the plea has mentioned.
The commencement of contemporary proceedings under the PMLA on identical specifics and masking the exact period is “instantly infringing the legal rights guaranteed under the Structure much more specifically Article 20(2) and Post 21…”, the plea has additional.
“In addition, the inclusion of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Agenda of PMLA is ultra vires the Structure as the ingredients of the offense less than the explained provision is the exact as the substances necessary to appeal to the offense underneath Segment 3 of the PMLA it mentioned.
The plea claimed Segment 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a entire code which envisages the part of laundering of ill-gotten prosperity by a community servant in the type of belongings and there can’t be any even further activity of laundering the proceeds all over again.
It is also alleged that the Delhi place of work of ED has no territorial jurisdiction to perform the current investigation and summon the petitioner who is a long term resident of Bengaluru. nlkn