Custodial Interrogation is required to confront P Chidambaram with the relevant documents and other accused in the case to take the investigation further, Mehta
We are at pre chargesheet case. He is not providing all the documents required for investigation.. certain questions can be answered only when the accused is not under the protective umbrella.., Mehta.
Mere appearance becomes a formality when the accused in under the protective umbrella. This is a serious case..of monumental magnitude, Mehta concludes as he urges the Court to grant 5 days custody of P Chidambaram.
Kapil Sibal begins, informs the Court that co-accused Karti Chidambaram was granted regular bail by Delhi HC, Chartered Accountant Bhaskaraman is also on anticipatory bail.
Other accused, Peter and Indrani Mukherjea are on default bail, Sibal.
This is a case of documentary evidence. The Secretaries recommended the case to the Finance Minister and he approved.. The FIR was filed after 10 years, Sibal
Last night, the CBI said that they wanted to interrogate him... They didn't start the interrogate until 12 noon and asked him only 12 questions... By now they should know what questions to ask. The questions are not ready, Sibal
All co-accused are on bail.. they (prosecution) could have written a letter to me asking for the documents needed for investigation.. why did they not do that?, Sibal
When the judge reserved the Judgement for seven months, is this the 'protective umbrella' that I sought?, Sibal
I have serious objection with the manner in which the accused as dealt with.. What is written in the case diary is not evidence in the case but only to aid in such inquiry or trial, Sibal
P Chidambaram is a called four months after Indrani's statement is recorded in 2018.. for 11-12 months P Chidambaram is not called for interrogation, Singhvi.
To create a reason for custody now, they create a reason that Indrani is now an approver, Singhvi.
She turns approver in 2019 based on the same old statement given in 2018..Singhvi.
You (Prosecution) have not made allegations of tampering of evidence or flight risk against P Chidambaram, Singhvi.
Grant of remand is an exception. Investigating Agency must make out a strong case that without custody further investigation would be impossible, Singhvi reads out a Supreme Court judgement.
Further investigation is going on. We filed an affidavit before HC stating that further investigation under section 173 CrPc is going on. It is our statutory right.There is a need to interrogate, Mehta.
Justifying calling P Chidambaram for interrogation only once, Mehta says,
We had a reasonable ground to come to the conclusion that we may not be able to reach the truth unless the protective umbrella is removed.
The protection was removed only in August 2019 when the Delhi HC said that the gravity of the offense committed by the accused demanded denial of bail, Mehta.
A responsible Prosecution wouldn't reveal the chronology of the questions to be asked. Whatever questions were asked, were recorded.
I cannot be denied my right to interrogate.. it is my duty to the nation, Mehta
We are considering remand..flight risk etc are not relevant.. We are dealing with intelligent people.. we would be failing as Prosecution if we do not reach the root (of the matter), Mehta.
Sibal says he does not want the questions to be made public, only want to ascertain the genuineness of the question.
P Chidambaram permitted to speak.
On June 6, 2018, please ask for the transcript.. there is no question which has not been answered.
The allegation of 5 Million whatever were never put to me. Only asked me if I have a foreign bank account or my son who furnished the details.
MK Stalin case: Supreme Court hears plea by AIADMK leader SA Duraiswamy challenging TN CM Stalin’s 2011 assembly election win from Kolathur constituency.
The plea alleges that Stalin and his party representatives indulged in corrupt practices, particularly by providing money and gifts to secure votes.
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi.
Sr. Adv. DS Naidu, appearing for Duraiswamy refers to a prosecution witness statement:
Naidu: the witness is the editor of a magazine called “kumudam snehidi”.
Court: what’s the meaning of that?
Another counsel: kumudum means lotus. Snehidi means friend.
Naidu: a friend of lotus. May be figurative meaning.
Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal (for Stalin): most inappropriate definition.
Court bursts into laughter.
Naidu: kumudam was once India’s largest selling family magazine. It’s basically a women’s magazine. Like women’s era. It’s the women’s wing of kumudam publications. Perhaps, the lotus is being compared with women and Snehidi is the friend of the woman, or the fairer sex.
Justice Maheshwari: (in jest): we can’t say anything…
Plea concerning seizure of electronic devices during criminal investigations
Sr Adv A Sundaram: some sort of information is being looked at. No predicate offence against me and my phone is being looked to find a link with predicate offence. There needs to be some guidelines to stop such fishing and roving inquiry. Where is my privacy I ask ? If my phone contain something.. then how it affects them.. there is nothing.
CJI: tell us why your mobile has been taken away ? There are people siphoning off thousands of crores and phones cannot be looked into? If they rely on something which is not related to this then we can intervene. We can look at it from case to case also. But not like this. Let them see first.
Sundaram: Then my plea becomes infructuous!
CJI: why did they come to you.
Sundaram: please see the summons, nothing against me.
Justice Bagchi: This is a fallacious argument by you Mr Sundaram. ECIR is in respect of an offence and not an individual. There is no notice needed for seizing a device.
CJI: you are behaving as if you have nothing to do. ED just raided your place early morning as if you called them for tea.
Supreme Court to resume hearing its suo motu case on stray dogs at 2pm today.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
Follow this thread for live updates.
#straydogs #SupremeCourt
On the last hearing, the Court had lamented that many lawyers argued on behalf of dog lovers in the case but nobody was arguing or putting forth the views on behalf of human beings.
Supreme Court to hear plea by Enforcement Directorate accusing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State officials of interfering with the central agency's investigation and search operations at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder, Pratik Jain #SupremeCourt
#IPAC @MamataOfficial @dir_ed
Enforcement Directorate has also filed an application seeking suspension of West Bengal Police top brass, including DGP Rajiv Kumar, alleging they aided Mamata Banerjee in obstructing ED raids and removal of evidence; plea seeks directions to Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Training, and recalls Kumar’s past dharna with the CM as Kolkata Police Commissioner @MamataOfficial #IPAC @dir_ed
Justices Prashant Mishra and Vipul Pancholi assemble
@MamataOfficial #IPAC @dir_ed
Delhi High Court is hearing the petition filed by former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav against a trial court order framing criminal charges against him and his family members in the alleged IRCTC scam case.
The matter is listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal arguing for Prasad - They [CBI] refer to 2 communications that have no relation to any corrupt practice.
Calcutta High Court to shortly hear petitions concerning the Enforcement Directorate’s recent raids on political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain.
Follow this thread for live updates 🧵
All India Trinamool Congress and the Enforcement Directorate have filed separate petitions. Justice Suvra Ghosh will hear the matter at 2:30 PM.