New Delhi [India], November 25 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Monday issued a court notice to Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for Enforcement Directorate (ED) for making false submissions.
ED officer ensured the court that he would look into the matter regarding false submissions and sensitise them by conducting a special sensitisation program.
“Court Notice be issued to the Ld. counsel to apprise the court why he did not inform that the application has been conceded by DoE and they are seeking time of 15 days just to return the articles,” Special Judge ordered on November 25.
The court said that It is expected that Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) will inform the court regarding remedial action initiated by them.
The court is dealing with an application seeking return of articles seized during investigation by the ED as the case related to him has been quashed by the Supreme Court on March 5, 2024.
In this matter, the court called the Special Director of ED on Saturday.
On Monday Special Public Prosecutor NK Matta moved an application for exemption on behalf of Special Director, ED.
Deputy director Nishi Chaudhary appeared before the court.
It was stated in the application that due to some prior engagement, he is unable to come today in the court. Deputy Director was deputed to appear today in court.
The court informed her about the concern of the court regarding the conduct of the counsel(s), who are appearing on behalf of ED.
Deputy Director submitted that the Department has informed the learned Counsel through email that they are not objecting to the present application and 15 days time may be sought to return the seized articles.
A copy of communication by email dated November 22, was also filed.
The court noted that the fact regarding the conceding of the application was never informed by the Counsel for DoE on the last date of hearing.
It was submitted by Assistant Legal Advisor Gaurav Saini that he will personally look into the matter regarding the false sub-missions and conduct of the counsels appearing on behalf of ED and shall sensitize them by conducting special sensitization programme.
It was further submitted by the ED that Department seeks ten days to collect the articles, which are to be returned from FSL, Gandhinagar.
The adjournment is not opposed by the Counsel for applicant. There exist justified reasons for seeking adjournment, the court said.
The court directed the applicant along with his counsel shall be personally present on the next date of hearing for collecting the articles on December 4.
The Rouse Avenue court on November 23 issued a notice to Special Director of ED to appear.
The court issued notice after taking a serious view of the conduct of the counsel for DoE.
The Special Director has been asked to specify the stand in relation to seeking adjournment without showing extreme necessity by its counsel.
While issuing notice on Saturday the court had said, “As the Counsel for the DoE has failed to specify the reason for seeking adjournment and has simply stated that he has been asked by the higher-ups to do so, I am constrained to issue notice to worthy Special Director to appear and specify the stand of DoE with regard to the present application and to verify as to whether its counsel has been acting and conducting the case as per their instruction.”
The court had also said, “The response of worthy Special Director is further necessitated to initiate appropriate action for upholding the dignity of the court.”
It was submitted by Counsel for the applicant that the ECIR qua the applicant has already been quashed by the Supreme Court by the order of March 5. Therefore, it is the duty of the Department of DoE to release the articles mentioned in the application.
The court said that the fact regarding the quashing of the ECIR has not been disputed by the Counsel for DoE.
However, he submitted that he has been instructed to state that the time of 15 days may be granted for filing a reply to the present application.
The Court asked the counsel why the time was being sought, though the notice on the application was issued on November 12 to which the Counsel submitted that he had specific instructions from higher-ups to seek adjournment for 15 days.
“The question was put to the learned counsel to inform the court regarding the extreme necessity for seeking adjournment to which learned counsel in a very offensive and derogatory manner with loud tone audible to the Counsels present in the courtroom submits ‘Court ko jaisa lage waisa kar le’,” the court had noted.
“This Court wonders why learned Counsel got so agitated on putting off a simple query,” special judge had noted in the order.
The court also mentioned that another counsel also behaved in such a manner in another case.
“This is not a solitary instance where the counsels for DoE have behaved in such a manner. In the case titled ‘Directorate of Enforcement Vs Amrendra Dhari Singh and Ors’, the Counsel appearing for DoE had made a false submission regarding the supply of a list of un-relied documents for which the court was constrained to summon and verify the said fact from the IO,” the court said.
The court said in the order that the learned counsel as well as the DoE is well conversant of the fact that the parties seeking adjournment for more than 7 days have to show extreme necessity. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
