NEW DELHI: Pulling up ED, a Delhi court said the investigative agency was bound by the rule of law and could not act “high and mighty” against ordinary citizens who were not even suspects in a case.
The observation was made by special judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court on April 30, while rejecting a plea by businessman Amit Katyal seeking extension of the interim bail granted to him in a money laundering case.Katyal is accused of illegal monetary transactions with Lalu Yadav’s family members in connection with land-for-railway-jobs scam.
While the court refused to extend Katyal’s bail, it reprimanded ED for invoking section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to record the statements of doctors of two private hospitals consulted by the accused after he was granted interim bail on Feb 5.
Katyal submitted before the court that ED recording statements of the two doctors was not only in violation of the permissible action under section 50 of PMLA, but also an intrusion in the privacy of the medical treatment, which was his fundamental right.
In its 37-page order, the court made stern remarks against “manifest abuse of section 50 by ED”. “As an agency answerable to the law and the courts, ED cannot arrogate powers unto itself,” the judge said, adding that the court “will certainly not remain amiss in highlighting and rejecting an entirely high-handed act” of the agency.
Cautioning ED against a similar approach in future, the court observed that “strong leaders, laws and agencies generally come back to bite the very citizens they vow to protect”.
The observation was made by special judge (PC Act) Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court on April 30, while rejecting a plea by businessman Amit Katyal seeking extension of the interim bail granted to him in a money laundering case.Katyal is accused of illegal monetary transactions with Lalu Yadav’s family members in connection with land-for-railway-jobs scam.
While the court refused to extend Katyal’s bail, it reprimanded ED for invoking section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to record the statements of doctors of two private hospitals consulted by the accused after he was granted interim bail on Feb 5.
Katyal submitted before the court that ED recording statements of the two doctors was not only in violation of the permissible action under section 50 of PMLA, but also an intrusion in the privacy of the medical treatment, which was his fundamental right.
In its 37-page order, the court made stern remarks against “manifest abuse of section 50 by ED”. “As an agency answerable to the law and the courts, ED cannot arrogate powers unto itself,” the judge said, adding that the court “will certainly not remain amiss in highlighting and rejecting an entirely high-handed act” of the agency.
Cautioning ED against a similar approach in future, the court observed that “strong leaders, laws and agencies generally come back to bite the very citizens they vow to protect”.