Northeast Delhi violence case: IPC, PMLA deal with different offences in their own spheres, observes Delhi Court

A Delhi Court on Saturday dismissed the bail plea of Tahir Hussain in the money laundering case observing that he is an accused in this case as also in the main conspiracy case and other riot cases. The Court said that IPC and PMLA are different statutes to deal with different kinds of offences and both operate in their own spheres.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat rejected the contention of the counsel for Tahir Hussain that if one accused person is granted pardon, then there can be no criminal conspiracy since accuse cannot conspire with himself.

The court observed, "what the law requires for a conspiracy is an involvement of two or more persons. The granting of pardon to one, on his statement and the stand of the prosecution, does not detract from the fact that they were accused in this matter for the offence of money laundering."

"Moreover, the fact that another co-accused was not accused in other FIRs does not mean that he cannot be accused in the present matter, since both IPC and PMLA are different statutes to deal with different kinds of offences and both operate in their own spheres", the Court stated.

Special Public Prosecutor NK Matta objected to the bail plea saying that the accused Tahir Hussain was the main conspirator involved in the acts of criminal conspiracy, cheating and falsification/ forgery of documents which resulted in fraudulent removal of money from the accounts of certain companies. The present case involves the offence of money laundering and proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2 (1) (u) of the PMLA.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) had submitted that Tahir Hussain actively funded anti CAA protests and riots and was in touch with protestors and rioters. In the Chandbagh area where anti CAA protest was going on, Tahir Hussain met Suleiman Siddiqui and gave him money for use in an uproar and asked him to make complete arrangements.

He also met a woman Gul at Jafrabad, where another CAA protest was going on, handed over the money to her and told her to do similar things as Suleiman Siddiqui, argued the SPP.

He further submitted that Tahir's active role in the Northeast Delhi riots is highlighted by the fact that there was a sudden surge of persons in his office a few days before the riots and he conducted several meetings with them. Some of such people were identified as Arshad Pradhan, Irshad Ahmed, Aabid Khan, among others who were arrested by the Delhi Police and Crime Branch for instigating riots.

The offence is grave in nature he is involved in other cases of riots including the larger conspiracy case FIR No. 59/2020. Further investigation is in progress.

On the other hand advocate Rizwan, counsel for the accused had argued that Tahir Hussain has been falsely implicated in this case. The present case began after the registration of three FIRs by the Crime Branch. One of which is investigated by the Special Cell of Delhi Police in relation to the Delhi riots of 2020.

The Counsel further argued that initially, four persons including Umar Khalid were named, however, the complaint filed before this court by ED was against the applicant Tahir Hussain and Amit Gupta but the status of Umar Khalid and others is not clear. Furthermore, in the investigation of the present matter, cheating and falsification have been introduced.

He strongly argued that a bare look into the complaint and the investigation by ED shows that the accused can at best be held liable and prosecuted for the offence under Section 122 of GST Act for bogus and fake invoices.

The Counsel for the accused argued that the present offence does not involve any money laundering or proceed of crime and the case only be an economic offence covered by Sections 122 and 123 of the GST Act.

Advocate Rizwan submitted that the case was registered on the predicate offence involving criminal conspiracy in which the applicant is an accused but co-accused is not.

He also argued that once accused Amit Gupta has been granted pardon consequent to his application and no objection/support by the prosecution, the offence of conspiracy cannot survive since he remains the only accused person. Moreover, since Section 420/467 IPC is not involved in the predicate offence, then the present case of conspiracy cannot be attracted.

( With inputs from ANI )

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor