In the Delhi High Court today,the senior Advocate N. Hariharan appeared for Satyendar Jain to argue that the cheque period should be considered taken into consideration.
He also added that the proceeds of crime will be generated only after an offence has been committed. “I’ll expand on this aspect, in due course.
The senior advocate said that the Scheduled offence is not made out.
He further argued that all the shares were acquired in 2008-10 when Satyendar Jain was not a public servant.
Citing back the Vijay Madan Lal’s Judgment of the apex court the counsel said that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) cannot make a case on the Notional Basis.
Taking note of the submissions, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma listed the matter for further hearing on January 17.
The Single judge December 1, the single-judge bench issued a notice and sought a response from the ED within two weeks on the plea filed by Jain in connection in the present matter.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appearing for Jain had submitted, “We are seeking a regular bail in the present case, post dismissal of an application by the trial court”.
He had contended that for a ‘predicate offence to take place in a disproportionate assets case, there is a cheque period (February 14, 2015, to May 31, 2017) within which the offense is supposed to have been committed.
Hariharan had submitted that on August 30, 2017, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered under Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) in pursuance of this predicate offense, and on December 3, 2018, the charge sheet was filed, and on July 6, 2019, he was granted regular bail (on summons) by the Special Judge (CBI).
The Senior Counsel had further stated that “after five years down the line, I (Jain) am arrested on May 31, 2022, in the ECIR and remanded to police custody. Since June 13, 2022, I have in judicial custody in the present case.” Furthermore, he submitted that Jain moved his first bail application to the ECIR on June 18 which was rejected on the ground that investigations were not complete, otherwise, he stated, that the bail order stated that “I (Jain) am not at Flight Risk”.
Hariharan had stated, “Broadly, I have given you how we have reached here, in relation to this appeal, My endeavor during the course of argument of this bail application…is to show you that there are no proceeds of crime in this case, in fact as far as predicate offence is concerned, there has not been committed predicate offence. It is all based on a notional basis”.
He had added, “If no predicate offence is committed, even as per latest observations of Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary’s case, the offence in relation to PMLA of proceeds of crime being generated will not lie in the mouth of the ED. This will be the endeavor.” Furthermore, Hariharan had contended that the trial court’s order goes out to make a new case which has been set up by the Special Judge.