New Delhi [India], July 7 : The Rouse Avenue court on Monday heard the arguments on behalf of Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian against the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which filed a Prosecution complaint (Charge sheet). The court is hearing submissions on the cognisance of the prosecution complaint.
A senior advocate who appeared for Suman Dubey submitted that donors do not donate to a party for specific purposes. It is the party that decides the use of the funds.
The ED alleges that donors were cheated, as the Rs 90 crore loan was given to AJL by the AICC, and this money was intended for the party's use. It was a wrongful loss to the Congress Party.
After hearing the submissions, the court has listed the matter for hearing arguments on the Accused firm, Dotex, tomorrow. Thereafter, the ASG, SV Raju, will make rebuttal submissions.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne heard the submissions made by Senior Advocate Sushil Bajaj on behalf of Suman Dubey, who was a director in Young Indian.
Senior advocate submitted that it is a disservice to describe him as a puppet of Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. None of the acts done by him were illegal. He was never a member of the AICC.
According to the ED, Suman Dubey was appointed Director of Young Indian in 2010 and also became the Director of AJL.
Senior advocate Bajaj adopted the submission of ASG SV Raju, who appeared for ED, that "Young Indian (YI) and AJL were a facet of AICC, and it is entirely an AICC affair."
As of today, neither the AICC nor the AJL are accused, and therefore, any suggestions that shareholders of AJL or the donors of AICC are cheated are wrong, a senior advocate argued.
He asserted that the donors of a party do not donate for any specific purpose and are left for the best judgment of the office bearers. A loan was given for the revival of the newspaper.
Revival of a newspaper was a legitimate purpose, and for that, for a number of years, an interest-free loan was being advanced for years, a senior advocate submitted.
"No proceeds of crime generated in this case," senior advocate Bajaj argued. The property of AJL will remain the property of AJL, he added.
He further submitted that AJL is competent to sell its properties. All these properties are leasehold. It cannot be sold without the permission of the lessor; in some cases, the lessor is the President of India.
He said that every newspaper that received land it was received at a concessional rate. How does renting out the properties create proceeds of crime? Questioned Bajaj.
How much money has gone to Suman Dubey that is not on record? No generation of proceeds of crime, Bajaj submitted?
There is no ground for this court to take cognisance in this case, he added.
During arguments, it was also submitted that Dotex belonged to RP Goyanka, a longtime supporter of Congress. Interest was charged and paid by the JAL. The loan was fully repaid. These facts are in the knowledge of ED, Bajaj argued.
The ED had said that a loan was of Rs one crore from Dotex to AJL.
The senior advocate also referred to the statement of Suman Dubey, in which he had stated that the loan was taken and repaid through the banking channel. It was reflected in the book of accounts, Dubey had stated.
The complaint does not show any criminal intention on the part of Suman Dubey. It also does not show any generation of proceeds of crime. There is no offence to take cognisance of, senior counsel added.
A senior advocate who appeared for Sam Pitroda submitted that the shareholding in any company does not confer any right in the property of the company.
By giving a loan, it was the plan to revive the AJL and to keep the publication business to carry on. Now, AJL is doing well, the senior counsel submitted. He was a director in Young Indian, Pitroda's counsel argued.
It was also submitted that no specific role of his has been shown to attract vicarious liability. No specific role has been assigned to him in relation to vicarious liability, the counsel for Sam Pitroda argued.
Counsel for Young Indians submitted that Commercial activities cannot be attributed to criminality.
When a private complaint is filed, a statement of the complainant is recorded. In this case, the statement of the complainant is not recorded. Pre-summoning evidence is not evidence, counsel for the young Indian argued.
He said that the Statement of Dr Subramaniam Swamy was not recorded. The income tax department said that the loan of Rs. 90 crores from AICC to AJL was a sham transaction. It means no money was transferred. On the other hand, the ED said that the loan was given to AJL, and there was a transaction. Which stand is correct, counsel questioned?
Senior counsel Pramod Kumar Dubey for Dotex argued that citizen-centric prosecution is the need of the hour, as it is cognisance of the offender and not of the offence.
It is also submitted that the accused firm is not an accused before the ACMM. At the time of registration of the present ECIR, you (ED) did not have material, the Senior Advocate argued.
Can an order from ACMM be the basis of this case? There is no complaint. Can you make Biryani without having rice? he added.
This complaint has been filed by a person who belongs to a particular party, who claims cheating, the senior submitted. Assume Dr Swamy is the victim or representative of the victim. What's the claim of the victim? He questioned.
What is the amount of proceeds of crime generated from the scheduled offence? The connection must be with the crime, not with the figment of the imagination of ED. There must be criminality and the results of criminal activity with the proceeds of crime, the counsel argued.
The senior counsel submitted that the original complaint was not filed under PMLA; it was filed under IPC. it can not be amended at any stage. What's the proceeds of crime in this case? he questioned.
The senior advocate also took the court to the original complaint filed by Dr Swamy.
Just by paying Rs 50 Lakh, a Young Indian obtained the right to cover a loan of Rs 90 crores, counsel referred to the Complaint of Dr Swamy.
Senior counsel submitted that the Proceeds of crime were generated from the scheduled offence only. There is a blood relation.