Madras High Court today reserved its orders on a petition filed by senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram, wife of former Union Minister P Chidambaram, challenging the summons issued to her by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with its money laundering probe in the Saradha chit fund scam case.
After hearing arguments by senior counsel Vijaynarayan and Krishnamurthy representing Nalini, Justice T S Sivagnanam, reserved orders and told the Additional Solicitor General C Rajagopalan, appearing for the ED, that "in the meantime let there be no precipitative action."
In response, the ASG said that he will inform the ED.
Nalini submitted that as per section 160 of CrPC, a woman could not be summoned by police and inquiry has to be conducted in her house.
Pointing out that CBI had already filed a charge sheet in the Saradha chit fund scam probe before a court in West Bengal, the petitioner said her name did not figure in it either as an accused or witness and yet she was summoned by the ED.
The matter pertains to the legal fee allegedly paid to the petitioner by Saradha group over a television channel purchase deal.
A sum of Rs one crore was paid to Nalini for her appearances in the court and company law board by Saradha group chairman, Sudipto Sen, as part of a clause in an agreement between him and former Union Minister Matang Sinh's wife Manoranjana, who was Nalini's client, over a television channel purchase deal, Vijaynarayan, counsel for Nalini, told PTI.
The counsel further said her fees was declared in the tax returns and the transactions happened before the Saradha scam case.
Claiming that Nalini had fully cooperated with the ED, the counsel said his client had answered all the questions in the earlier summons, while the third and fourth summons contained similar questions and asked her to appear in person.
Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to declare the fourth summons issued by ED as illegal and to restrain its officials from initiating any action against her.
(REOPENS LGM 1)
During the arguments in court, Nalini's counsel Vijayanarayan alleged that the prosecution had "gone beyond its line" and dubbed it as "persecution" and "an attempt for political reasons" to harass (her).
He claimed that even the CBI chargesheet had not mentioned anything about the amount received by Nalini as professional fee as being proceeds of the alleged crime (Saradha scam).
The other counsels (in the TV channel deal) had not been summoned, he submitted, adding that the fee was received when the scam was yet to come to light.
"An attempt has been made for political reasons and unless the court interferes, anything can happen," he submitted.
Explaining her appearance before the Company Law Board and the Delhi High Court in the matter related to a dispute over the TV channel purchase deal, Nalini's counsel said, according to an agreement between Manoranjana and Sudipto Sen, the Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd, run by Sen, had committed to professionally and legally assist in her ongoing litigations.
Accordingly, Sen, through his real estate company Saradha Realty India Limited, paid the "professional fee" of about Rs one crore to Nalini.
But, the CBI later registered a case against Sen for failure to return deposits made in his chit funds. It was in this connection, the professional fee paid to Nalini from one of Sen's companies was inquired by the CBI.
The counsel also said Nalini had fully explained to the CBI about the receipt of the professional fee.
It was in this connection, the ED had issued four summonses for her appearance, which was challenged by her.
He further submitted that Nalini had also sent her authorised representative to the ED in response to earlier summonses and the questionnaire was fully answered and all the documents were submitted to the agency.
Stating that the same questionnaire was again issued by the ED, he said in the fourth and last summons, the words "authorised representative" were struck off.
Assistant Solicitor General G Rajagopalan, appearing on behalf of the ED, submitted that the matter was only in the stage of summons. Mere summoning itself could not be assumed as the person had been made an accused.
He also said the ED had summoned the petitioner as it might not have been satisfied with the answers furnished by the "authorised" person.
"It is only in the stage of collecting evidence and the officer who issues summons does not know about the person and personalities," he said, apparently rejecting the charge of "political reasons".
