Senior Advocate Rebecca John argued in the Delhi High Court that summons issued in the ED’s money laundering case against Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal violated procedural norms, questioning the legitimacy of changed issuing officers. The court allowed the ED time to provide documentation supporting Officer Sharma’s authority, with the next hearing scheduled for February 11, 2025.
New Delhi: Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, argued before the Delhi High Court that the issuance of summons in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering case related to the now-defunct liquor excise policy violated procedural norms under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Rebecca John contended that while the initial summons were issued by Assistant Director Joginder, subsequent summons came from Officer Sandeep Sharma, raising questions about compliance with Section 174 IPC. She argued:
“If Sharma was a co-investigating officer, assuming contentions of ED are true, then was this fact brought to the notice of the summoning court in the complaint?”
The defense emphasized that only a legally competent public servant could issue such summons, as required under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain, representing the ED, highlighted the internal structure of investigative powers, asserting that:
“An assistant director possesses the authority to investigate, with internal authorizations enabling other officers to carry out investigative activities.”
Hussain clarified that Officer Sandeep Sharma had proper authorization and actively filed petitions, replies, and prosecution complaints before the trial court. He further stressed that Sharma’s jurisdiction to act as the investigating officer had not been previously challenged.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri remarked that the filing of petitions and investigative authority were distinct matters. The court inquired whether the ED had submitted adequate documentation to establish Officer Sharma’s authorization. Hussain responded affirmatively, stating that he could provide the necessary documents and cited references in counter filings.
Rebecca John questioned the change in the issuing officer, highlighting that:
“When AD Joginder is present, he has not been transferred or superannuated. He is very much around.”
John argued that this switch reflected procedural inconsistency and raised doubts about the legitimacy of the summons. She further scrutinized the ED’s complaint, asserting that much of the information presented was “post facto” and not disclosed during the initial stages, leading to non-compliance with Sections 174 IPC and 195 IPC.
The court noted the prosecution’s insistence on Officer Sharma’s role as the investigating officer and allowed time for the ED to submit supporting documentation. The matter has been scheduled for a further hearing on February 11, 2025.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES