New Delhi, Dec 6 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday noted “disturbing features” in the arrest of former IAS officer Anil Tuteja by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case related to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam.


A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustinus George Masih called the facts of the case “glaring” and recorded the “disturbing features” of the former bureaucrat’s arrest on April 20.



“The petitioner (Anil Tuteja) was sitting in the ACB office in Raipur on April 20, 2024 at around 4:30 PM. First, he was served a summons directing him to appear before ED at 12 noon. Thereafter, another summons was served while he was in ACB office, summoning him to appear before ED at 5:30 PM. He was then taken to the ED office in an ED-provided van, where he was interrogated all night and arrested at 4 am. The facts are dire,” the bank underlined in its order.





It allowed senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and other lawyers appearing for Tuteja to withdraw his appeal and give him liberty to approach the court for bail.


“The SLPs are removed as withdrawn with the liberty to apply for bail and if such an application is made, taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, the concerned Special Court will give due priority to the hearing of the bail application,” directed the court.


Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, informed the court that the agency should take corrective measures to ensure that such incidents were avoided and a press release was issued in this regard on October 29, 2024.


During the hearing, Singhvi said the Supreme Court had earlier quashed the money laundering case registered by the ED on April 8, 2024.


He claimed that the ED had registered a fresh ECIR (complaint) three days later based on the same set of facts and material, saying the agency could not have new information in such a short time.


Justice Oka asked whether the ED could rely on the same material from the first ECIR, which had been quashed, to justify the registration of a second case.


Raju during the investigation of the second ECIR, all relevant documents, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, were obtained from the Investigating Officer of the first ECIR.


He argued that the material collected was preserved and could form the basis for further proceedings.


Judge Oka noted that the quashing of the first ECIR was based on the absence of a predicate offence.


The court said that while it would not comment on the legality of the investigation, it wanted to see whether the arrest was illegal.


Judge Oka then asked Singhvi if he wanted a detailed ruling on the issue, saying it could have an impact on the bail, if the court recorded its reasoning.


Singhvi then sought permission to withdraw the petition, with the liberty to apply for bail in the case.


On December 5, the Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the ED’s haste to arrest Tuteja in the case.


“It’s unfortunate. How can you arrest someone in the middle of the night? What’s going on, was it that urgent? You could have called him the next day. He was not some terrorist who would go in with bombs,” the bench said at the time.


Raju then tried to justify the agency’s action saying there were fears that Tuteja would go underground as he evaded its notices.


The court then told the ED to be prepared to answer the question on the maintainability of the new case filed by the agency on April 11, after the court had dismissed the entire ED proceedings against Tuteja and other suspects on April 8 had quashed as the predicate offense was based on income tax proceedings, which was not a scheduled offense under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).


The ED has claimed that the fresh case was based on the FIR registered by Chhattisgarh police and on various charges and evidence.


The agency alleged that illegal profits worth Rs 2,000 crore were earned by a syndicate involving politicians, bureaucrats and private individuals during the period 2019-2023, of which Tuteja was an integral part.


It said this money allegedly came from bribes collected from distillers and from unregistered sales of rural liquor by state liquor vendors.


On April 8, the top court quashed the money laundering case against Tuteja and his son Yash in the alleged Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam in Chhattisgarh, saying there was no proceeds of crime.


The complaint was quashed after it was noted that since there was no ex-facie planned offense (principal offence) against them, no offense under the PMLA had been committed. PTI MNL AMK


This report is automatically generated by PTI news service. ThePrint is not responsible for its content.



Sitemap of behaprnotu.aps2022.online

Cannabis News RSS Feeds: Weedrss.com

1000+ unique media and news posts every 24 hours…

Published 2 hours ago
Published 7 hours ago
Published 13 hours ago
Published 16 hours ago
Published 17 hours ago
Published 17 hours ago
Published 20 hours ago
Published 21 hours ago
Published 21 hours ago
Published 21 hours ago
Published 22 hours ago