National Herald: Court refuses to take cognisance of ED chargesheet against Gandhis

ANew delhi margaret court on tues declined to occupy cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the Enforcement board of directors (ED) in the National Herald case, which names senior Congress leaders Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.The court said it is impermissible in law to take judicial note of the charge sheet and summon the Gandhis.Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court, orally reading from the order, said, “Since the present prosecution complaint pertaining the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is based on a complaint filed by a private person and does not arise from a first information report (FIR), the cognisance for the same is impermissible in law”.The court further said that since the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing had already lodged an FIR in the case, it was premature for the court to adjudicate the contents presented by ED through its chargesheet.“The arguments have not touched the merits of the case from either party,” the court said.The court, however, said that the ED was at a liberty to further argue its case on the next date of hearing.Through a separate order, the court declined to provide copies of the EOW FIR in the National Herald case to the accused persons, holding that they were not entitled to the same. The court, however, allowed the accused to access information regarding the case.The ED’s counsels, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, assisted by Special counsel Zoheb Hossain, have been defending its chargesheet filed before the court in April, detailing how the accused persons took over a debt-ridden firm Associated Journals Ltd. — which ran the National Herald newspaper — through Young Indian (YI) — a company owned by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi — in a ‘surreptitious manner’ to amass its assets worth over ₹2,000 crore through a mere loan of ₹50 lakh. The ED also claims to have found a trail of around ₹988 crore amassed illegally as proceeds of crime.ASG Raju, on behalf of ED, had argued that Young Indian (YI) was engaged in money laundering and even though it was registered as a charitable organisation, the intended charity never saw the light of the day.Also Read: Herald case: AICC attempted to revive AJL, submits RahulThe ED had submitted that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi used their firm YI as a vehicle for acquiring Associate Journals Limited (AJL), causing huge losses to several shareholders.Calling YI a ‘facade’ used in a clandestine manner to amass the several properties belonging to AJL, the ED claimed that the intention was not to revive the party-run paper but to misappropriate money in the favour of Gandhis and the other accused.Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi’s counsels, through SeniorAdvocates RS Cheema Abhishek Manu Singhvi respectively, had argued at length, against taking cognisance of the chargesheet, maintaining that YI was trying to revive a debt-laden AJL — which ran the party’s National Herald newspaper — in a bid to continue its legacy and ideals which went parallel to the party’s ideology.Sonia Gandhi’s counsel, advocate RS Cheema had argued that while acquiring AJL, none of its assets were moved towards YI or the Gandhis, who only held shares, constituting no money laundering.Besides the Gandhis, ED has also named overseas Congress head Sam Pitroda and former journalist Suman Dubey in the charge sheet, along with the Young Indian Private Limited (YI) -- a firm in which Sonia and Rahul Gandhi together hold 76% stake, and Kolkata-based Dotex Mechandise, which the ED claims as a shell company which gave a loan to YI as part of the conspiracy.