National Herald money laundering case: Donation to a party not for specific purpose, argues counsel for accused

New Delhi [India], July 7 (ANI): The Roue Avenue court on Monday heard the argument on behalf of Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda and Young Indian againt the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which filed a Proecution complaint (Charge heet). The court i hearing ubmiion on the cogniance of the proecution complaint.
A enior advocate who appeared for Suman Dubey ubmitted that donor do not donate to a party for pecific purpoe. It i the party that decide the ue of the fund.
The ED allege that donor were cheated, a the R 90 crore loan wa given to AJL by the AICC, and thi money wa intended for the party ue. It wa a wrongful lo to the Congre Party.
After hearing the ubmiion, the court ha lited the matter for hearing argument on the Accued firm, Dotex, tomorrow. Thereafter, the ASG, SV Raju, will make rebuttal ubmiion.
Special Judge Vihal Gogne heard the ubmiion made by Senior Advocate Suhil Bajaj on behalf of Suman Dubey, who wa a director in Young Indian.
Senior advocate ubmitted that it i a diervice to decribe him a a puppet of Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. None of the act done by him were illegal. He wa never a member of the AICC.
According to the ED, Suman Dubey wa appointed Director of Young Indian in 2010 and alo became the Director of AJL.
Senior advocate Bajaj adopted the ubmiion of ASG SV Raju, who appeared for ED, that Young Indian (YI) and AJL were a facet of AICC, and it i entirely an AICC affair.
A of today, neither the AICC nor the AJL are accued, and therefore, any uggetion that hareholder of AJL or the donor of AICC are cheated are wrong, a enior advocate argued.
He aerted that the donor of a party do not donate for any pecific purpoe and are left for the bet judgment of the office bearer. A loan wa given for the revival of the newpaper.
Revival of a newpaper wa a legitimate purpoe, and for that, for a number of year, an interet-free loan wa being advanced for year, a enior advocate ubmitted.
No proceed of crime generated in thi cae, enior advocate Bajaj argued. The property of AJL will remain the property of AJL, he added.
He further ubmitted that AJL i competent to ell it propertie. All thee propertie are leaehold. It cannot be old without the permiion of the leor; in ome cae, the leor i the Preident of India.
He aid that every newpaper that received land it wa received at a conceional rate. How doe renting out the propertie create proceed of crime? Quetioned Bajaj.
How much money ha gone to Suman Dubey that i not on record? No generation of proceed of crime, Bajaj ubmitted?
There i no ground for thi court to take cogniance in thi cae, he added.
During argument, it wa alo ubmitted that Dotex belonged to RP Goyanka, a longtime upporter of Congre. Interet wa charged and paid by the JAL. The loan wa fully repaid. Thee fact are in the knowledge of ED, Bajaj argued.
The ED had aid that a loan wa of R one crore from Dotex to AJL.
The enior advocate alo referred to the tatement of Suman Dubey, in which he had tated that the loan wa taken and repaid through the banking channel. It wa reflected in the book of account, Dubey had tated.
The complaint doe not how any criminal intention on the part of Suman Dubey. It alo doe not how any generation of proceed of crime. There i no offence to take cogniance of, enior counel added.
A enior advocate who appeared for Sam Pitroda ubmitted that the hareholding in any company doe not confer any right in the property of the company.
By giving a loan, it wa the plan to revive the AJL and to keep the publication buine to carry on. Now, AJL i doing well, the enior counel ubmitted. He wa a director in Young Indian, Pitroda counel argued.
It wa alo ubmitted that no pecific role of hi ha been hown to attract vicariou liability. No pecific role ha been aigned to him in relation to vicariou liability, the counel for Sam Pitroda argued.
Counel for Young Indian ubmitted that Commercial activitie cannot be attributed to criminality.
When a private complaint i filed, a tatement of the complainant i recorded. In thi cae, the tatement of the complainant i not recorded. Pre-ummoning evidence i not evidence, counel for the young Indian argued.
He aid that the Statement of Dr Subramaniam Swamy wa not recorded. The income tax department aid that the loan of R. 90 crore from AICC to AJL wa a ham tranaction. It mean no money wa tranferred. On the other hand, the ED aid that the loan wa given to AJL, and there wa a tranaction. Which tand i correct, counel quetioned?
Senior counel Pramod Kumar Dubey for Dotex argued that citizen-centric proecution i the need of the hour, a it i cogniance of the offender and not of the offence.
It i alo ubmitted that the accued firm i not an accued before the ACMM. At the time of regitration of the preent ECIR, you (ED) did not have material, the Senior Advocate argued.
Can an order from ACMM be the bai of thi cae? There i no complaint. Can you make Biryani without having rice? he added.
Thi complaint ha been filed by a peron who belong to a particular party, who claim cheating, the enior ubmitted. Aume Dr Swamy i the victim or repreentative of the victim. What the claim of the victim? He quetioned.
What i the amount of proceed of crime generated from the cheduled offence? The connection mut be with the crime, not with the figment of the imagination of ED. There mut be criminality and the reult of criminal activity with the proceed of crime, the counel argued.
The enior counel ubmitted that the original complaint wa not filed under PMLA; it wa filed under IPC. it can not be amended at any tage. What the proceed of crime in thi cae? he quetioned.
The enior advocate alo took the court to the original complaint filed by Dr Swamy.
Jut by paying R 50 Lakh, a Young Indian obtained the right to cover a loan of R 90 crore, counel referred to the Complaint of Dr Swamy.
Senior counel ubmitted that the Proceed of crime were generated from the cheduled offence only. There i a blood relation. (ANI)