[ad_1]
A Delhi court Thursday extended the custody of Sameer Mahendru, the managing director of Indospirit Group, by four days in connection with the money laundering probe of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the excise policy case.
Special Judge M K Nagpal sent Mahendru to ED custody by observing that “investigation into a case of money laundering was a complicated affair” and his custody was needed to investigate the money trail and “link between the laundered proceeds of crime”.
The judge also considered the fact that Mahendru was the first person to be arrested in this case and that the investigation was at an initial stage.
Special Public Prosecutor N K Matta appeared on behalf of the ED and sought further 6-day custody of the accused.
The SPP submitted that the ED search conducted at NIC Data centre and back of ESCIMS portal of the Delhi excise department revealed that the login for a retail licence and wholesale distributor was done from the same IP address on 423 different occasions “which prima facie shows cartelisation between different stakeholders involved in the excise policy, in violation of the terms and spirit of the policy”. The judge considered this argument and said that Mahendru’s custody was necessary in view of this fact.
He also submitted that even though the accused was confronted with evidence in the form of electronic data and some new names have emerged during his questioning, Mahendru could not be confronted with the entire evidence.
Matta also submitted that the accused was evasive in his replies and did not cooperate with the investigation.
Advocate Dhruv Gupta, appearing for Mahendru, opposed the ED remand stating that his client stands already interrogated at length and the IO should have put all the evidence collected so far. He had also moved an application seeking a copy of the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) filed in this case which will be heard on the next date of hearing.
Gupta argued that the ED remand application was vague and “nothing but an abuse of the process of law”.
Gupta rebutted the ED claims that he had to be confronted with other persons in this case by submitting that the agency already had these names with them and had sufficient time to confront them with his client.
[ad_2]
Source link