The Madras High Court has dismissed the writ petition Nalini Chidambaram v. The Directorate of Enforcement and Ors (2018) filed by the wife of former Union Minister, Nalini Chidambaram to restrain the Enforcement Directorate (ED) requiring her attendance as a witness in connection with the professional legal fees received by her from Saradha Realty (Saradha Scam).
The appellant, a senior lawyer has been engaged by Ms. Manoranjana Sinh (M) through her counsel to act as a Senior lawyer on two occasions before. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between M/s GNN Pvt. Ltd., a media company owned by M and M/s Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd. Owned by Mr. Sudipto Sen (S) in the year 2010 whereby Bengal Media agreed to assist M in the ongoing litigation with Mr. Matang Sinh by coordinating with her lawyers. Another agreement was entered between M and S whereby the company shall issue fresh shares to the investor, promoter to transfer a portion of his equity for which an additional amount shall be payable by the investor and that the promoter shall hold 50% each in total share capital of the company.
The appellant is stated to have been paid the appellant an amount of Rs. 1 crore which was duly disclosed in his income but failed to honour his commitment to depositors for which a case was registered with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Summons was issued to the appellant in the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to appear in person identifying discrepancies between statements of M. The summons is hence being challenged by way of the present petition seeking umbrage under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the premise of protective discrimination.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that since the CBI had found nothing incriminatory against the appellant, the summons issued would amount to malice. Further, that the appellant is entitled for the protection under Sections 126 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 towards upholding the sanctity of the legal profession qua a client. And, that the benefit under Section 160 CrPC shall be given a liberal interpretation to fit in like-cases.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that due to the discovery of new facts leading to a couple of contradictions, the presence of the appellant is very much required. The contradiction arose when M in her statement had no idea on the appellant having paid by S on her behalf.
A comprehensive analysis of the application of the provisions of the CrPC in cases of Money Laundering in order to do away with inconsistencies between the two was made. It was elaborated that the Code and the Act are to be interpreted to sail together qua investigation.
While dismissing the appeal, the division bench comprising of Justice M.M Sundaresh and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that a woman can be called in a case by an authority while exercising its discretion on relevant materials. Further, “there is no necessity to meet the requirements of the proviso to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since an independent power has been conferred on the authority under Section 50 of the Act. Wherever the Act itself stipulates the specific power, authority and procedure, there is no requirement to read the provisions of the CrPC into it.” Neither the ground of presence of malice sustains.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
