Arguments on the bail application of Congress leader D.K. Shivakumar, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on money laundering charge earlier this month, concluded on Saturday. The court will pronounce its order on September 25.
Continuing his submissions on the ED’s behalf, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj said it was investigating ill-gotten wealth. The Income Tax Act did not deal with ill-gotten wealth and that its provisions were not meant to regularise tainted property.
“White always remains white and black always remains black. By paying tax, tainted money cannot become white,” said Mr. Nataraj, alleging that Mr. Shivakumar was evasive and non-cooperative in the investigation. He said during custody, the accused could be questioned only for four hours on an average a day.
Although a person had protection against self-incrimination [Article 20 (3) of the Constitution], the accused gave irrelevant answers to questions about the properties in question, he said. He alleged that there was a possibility of influencing the witnesses if he was released on bail. It was a serious economic offence, threat to national economy and, therefore, had to be dealt with an iron hand.
‘ED quoting higher figures every day’
Countering the prosecution, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi said the approach of throwing huge figures was an attempt to influence the court. The ED had been quoting higher figures every day, he said, adding that all the assets of Mr. Shivakumar had been declared before all the authorities concerned.
Mr. Singhvi urged the court to decide the bail application not on the merits of the case at this stage, but the principle of ‘Triple Test’. He said there was no flight risk and no possibility of tampering with evidence, and that the court could impose necessary conditions on him.
He also questioned the ED probe based on income tax findings. He stated that the Income Tax Act was not a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). While the PMLA was a 2002 legislation, the ED was probing the assets acquired by the father and grandfather of the accused.
But for Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, which is included in the PMLA schedule of predicate offence, the ED had no jurisdiction, said senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who also appeared for Mr. Shivakumar. “They say nation's economy is down because Rs.41 lakh is recovered from him,” he said, urging the court to go by the general principles of bail.
Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan also argued in favour of the Congress leader, wondering how a presumption could be made against an accused even before charges were pressed.
