Delhi HC asks Tahir Hussain to file plea against order on framing of charges in money laundering case

In his preliminary objection to Hussain’s plea, advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, said, “This is the second bite of the same apple. Matter was agitated all the way up to the Supreme Court. They have only filed the order by which the revision petition was dismissed.” He added that the petitioner should have filed the revision plea in this matter.

The HC orally noted that the ED’s “essential objection” was that the petitioner had filed the same petition earlier.

On this point, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Hussain, said the previous plea was a revision petition against an order framing charge and the present plea was filed for seeking a direction to quash the ED’s complaint. “We are here for quashing the complaint. These are not the same things,” she added.

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal said, “Let the copy of the petition in criminal revision no… be placed on record by the petitioner (Hussain). List on September 5.”

On November 24, 2022, the HC dismissed Hussain’s revision plea while observing that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s order which had found a “prima facie” case against Hussain for the “alleged commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA”.

“Statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, as reproduced from the ECIR, all prima facie indicate the alleged complicity of the petitioner (Hussain) with persons to cause an illegal act to be done through illegal means which would fall within the ambit of Section 120A (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, making the offence allegedly committed punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,” the HC had held.

In his plea seeking quashing of the ED’s complaint, Hussain has said “no case under Section 3 and 4, PMLA is made out” in the matter.

The plea states the allegations against Hussain pertain to “transactions which are exclusively not related to the scheduled offence”. The plea submits that as “no proceeds of crime accumulated from the scheduled offences” to Hussain, Section 3/4 PMLA cannot be invoked.

Stating that the trial is proceeding “only” on the basis of statements given to the ED the plea submits, “No persons in the statements stated that petitioner is involved in any process of activity with the proceed of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property.”

It further states, “In the complaint, the allegations are that the petitioner has allegedly withdrawn money from the account of certain companies owned or controlled by him through bogus and malafide transactions with bogus entry operators on the strength of fake bills, with him being the beneficiary and with intent to put it to use toward riots. (It) cannot attract provisions of Section 3 of PMLA and the act committed by the petitioner cannot attract provisions of section 2(u) of the PMLA. That the entirety of the investigation has been conducted in blatant violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to an accused person is writ large on the face of the record.”