The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its order on the petition moved by TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee's wife, Rujira Banerjee in a money-laundering case against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons issued against her in an alleged coal scam in West Bengal.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal concluded his argument saying there was no wilful disobedience by the petitioner who had challenged the Enforcement Directorate (ED) complaint and the trial court's order taking cognizance of the complaint and subsequent issuance of a summons for physical appearance.
The High Court last week had reserved an order on the petition moved by Abhishek Banerjee and his wife against the summons issued to them to appear in the national capital in a money-laundering investigation linked to an alleged coal scam in West Bengal.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar on Friday after hearing the submissions by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal counsel for the petitioner and Advocate Amit Mahajan, Standing Counsel appearing for ED.
Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal argued that there was no wilful disobedience of the notices issued to Rujira Banerjee issued by ED. "She was intended to join the investigation at Kolkata. She wrote a letter to the investigation agency every time she received a summon to physically appear in Delhi."
Sibal submitted that the petitioner was issued summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). "She was always intended to join the investigation. She is a mother of two small children and in this going on Covid pandemic it would be difficult for her to appear in Delhi," he added.
He further submitted that it would be convenient for the petitioner to appear in Kolkata. "ED has its office in Kolkata. Interrogate me there, the petitioner intends to fully cooperate," he said.
He argued that in this case, ED is investigating in Kolkata. "Another woman was interrogated there. So why can't the petitioner be interrogated in Kolkata? Was she asked to come to Delhi just because she is the wife of Abhishek Banerjee?" he said.
Sibal referred to a judgement that said that a woman can not be summoned to appear before the Investigation Officer in another state. "I always said come and interrogate me in Kolkata," he said.
"Whether she was legally bound to appear in Delhi. She was not," said Sibal. "None of the facts suggests that the petitioner intentionally omitted to appear before the agency in Delhi."
Senior Advocate Sibal earlier told the Delhi High Court that there is an embargo regarding to petitioner's wife. She has to be interrogated at her residence, Sibal said adding that a woman, a disabled person, a child should be investigated only where they reside and they can't be called to Delhi.
The Enforcement Directorate, earlier told the Delhi High Court that there is a difference between probes in offences dealing with provisions of PMLA and IPC and in IPC offences, there are police stations that have jurisdiction, however, in PMLA there is no such territorial jurisdiction.
Petitioner Abhishek Banerjee along with his wife Rujira Banerjee sought the issuance of direction to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to not summon them in New Delhi and carry out any further examination in Kolkata, West Bengal.
In this particular alleged illegal coal mining case in West Bengal, the CBI had already interrogated Abhishek Banerjee.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor