Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 1: The High Court today reserved its orders on the plea of Member Parliament and National Conference President Dr Farooq Abdullah challenging the attachment of his properties by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with alleged irregularities in Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice and Justice V V Koul reserved its orders after hearing the counsel for the parties.
The trial of the case pertaining to issuance of ED notice to petitioner Dr Farooq Abdullah is pending before the designated court and amongst the others Abdullah as also Ahsan Mirza (the then treasurer of JKCA) have been reflected as accused in the charge sheet filed by CBI.
Dr Abdullah in his plea has challenged the action of ED attaching his properties, on the ground that Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) under which his properties have been attached evidently deals with the attachment and confiscation of properties and therefore falls within the subject relating to the transfer and acquisition of property as well as relating to Civil Procedure.
Farooq’s counsel stated that in absence of the scheduled offence the ED had no authority to attach his ancestral properties under the PMLA. “It is settled law that the existence of a scheduled offence in ‘sine quo non’ or an essential prerequisite for the triggering of proceedings under the PMLA”, he stated.
He added that the proceedings initiated by the ED qua the petitioner on the basis that Section 120-B is the relevant scheduled offence for petitioner are without jurisdiction and violate the petitioner’s right under Article 21.
It is further argued that ED’s failure to adhere to the procedural safeguards under section 5 of the PMLA, while provisionally attaching the properties and restricting the petitioner’s liberty, has violated his fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution.
“ED failed to disclose its reason that ‘proceeds of crime’ amounting to Rs 15 crores are available with the petitioner and has replicated allegations in the CBI charge-sheet and termed it as ‘reason to believe’ and has failed to appreciate that the proceedings under the PMLA are independent from the scheduled offence, which has been made evident in the explanations to section 2 and section 44 PMLA”, read the plea.
Dr Abdullah in his plea before the High Court refused that he was involved or beneficiary of the transactions reproduced by the ED and added that there is no money trial to show that any of these ‘proceeds of crime’ amounting to Rs 45 crores were ever transferred to him and despite the absence of material the ED arbitrarily concluded that Rs 15 crores are proceeds of crime available with the petitioner.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
