Claiming as a potential violation of his fundamental right, a man has been recently listed by the CBI as a witness in a coal scam case has approached the Supreme Court against the ED’s decision naming him as an accused in the linked money laundering case, calling the action of the two federal probe agencies “inherently contradictory”.
The bench comprising of Justices Aniruddh Bose and Bela M Trivedi issued notice to the ED on a petition by Goutam Karmakar, who questioned the anti-money laundering agency’s action wondering how could it make him an accused in a predicate offence when he isn’t facing any investigation by the CBI or other agencies for the schedule offence. A predicate offence is a component of the larger crime.
Karmakar contended in his petition there is likelihood of his fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which says no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, being violated, as averments made by him as a CBI witness that can be used against him by the ED.
Karmakar’s counsel Vijay Aggarwal told the apex court while advancing his arguments that his client is a CBI witness in the “same series of events and transactions” for which he has been arrayed as an accused by the ED.
He contended, “differing actions” of the two investigating agencies in related matters are “inherently contradictory.”
While seeking quashing of the ED proceedings against Karmakar, Aggarwal, who appeared with advocate Yugant Sharma, argued the anti-money laundering agency and CBI are “at complete odds” with each other in the case, which will lead to violation of his fundamental right against self-incrimination as guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
He stated Karmakar’s evidence and testimony recorded as a witness will be directly and indirectly used against him by the ED.
The petition stated it is an essential question of law which needs to be settled by the Supreme Court as 2 investigating agencies that can’t take 2 different stands on the same set of facts.
Aggarwal contended, if a person named in a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence), no action can be taken against him for money laundering.
The ED arrested Dinesh Arora, a businessman, in a Delhi excise policy case a couple of months ago even after he made an approver by the CBI in a related case.
After hearing the arguments, the apex court issued notice to the ED which is returnable in two weeks.
