[ad_1]
The disproportionate assets case filed against AAP leader Satyendar Jain by the CBI has been transferred to a new judge following apprehension of bias expressed by the previous judge hearing the matter.
The CBI matter was at the stage of framing of charges and arguments had been addressed by both sides before Special Judge Geetanjli Goel. However, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) moved a transfer of proceedings application from her court and the case is now being heard by Special Judge Vikas Dhull.
On October 17, Special Judge Goel had observed that “judicial propriety demands that this Court does not further hear this matter to allay any apprehension of probable bias”.
The CBI case was then transferred to Dhull on Wednesday after Principal District and Sessions Judge Vinay Kumar Gupta allowed the transfer of the case to the new judge. Lawyers abreast with the developments had orally informed Dhull about the transfer of the CBI case while he was hearing the ED bail hearing which had resumed.
Dhull had resumed hearing the bail application of the accused persons after their lawyers withdrew their application challenging the transfer of the judge hearing the bail application from the Supreme Court.
The ED had arrested Jain in a money laundering case based on a CBI FIR lodged against the AAP leader in 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act under which he was accused of having laundered money through four companies allegedly linked to him.
During the bail hearing, two of the co-accused in the money laundering case told the court that contrary to the ED’s claims, they did not have any control over the four companies under investigation. The two accused, Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain, made their arguments through their lawyer, Dr Sushil Kumar Gupta, who told the court that as per the shareholding patterns, financial statements, authorised signatories, “Satyendar Jain was nowhere in the picture”.
While taking the court through the shareholding pattern, Gupta told the court: “Who is having majority shareholder? It was always with family (Ankush and Vaibhav). It cannot be Satyendar Jain can be having control over them.”
Gupta told the court that Ankush and Vaibhav signed balance sheets and land deals for the relevant period of investigation. “All cheques were signed by Ajit Prasad Jain or Sunil Jain and later replaced by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain. He (Satyendar) did not sign any cheques. Financial control was with them… searches at home, bank accounts, passbooks recovered from them, financial control of company was with them. Not a single transaction with Satyendar Jain,” Gupta told the court.
Gupta also told the court that taking accomodation entries as proceeds of crime in this case was an absurd and also questioned why the accomodation entries for previous years in 2011-12 were not taken into consideration.
“They are adopting selective measures for some persons for reasons know to them. We have been roped in falsely even though no case of money laundering is there… They have built a bias in their mind that everything belongs to Satyendar Jain and then will build everything around it,” Gupta told the court.
[ad_2]
Source link