The court had issued summons to him on the complaint the ED filed for non-compliance with summons issued by the ED.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) was directed to supply a copy of the complaint to the counsel for the accused. The matter has been listed for scrutiny on April 27.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) said that the accused was issued seven summons by the ED.
SPP also submitted that ED will not withdraw this complaint, unlike the application seeking issuance of NBW against the accused. He committed the offence of non-compliance of summons; therefore, this complaint was filed.
SPP Benjamin requested the court direct Amanat Ullah Khan to appear physically.
Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj Counsel for Amanat Ullah Khan said that we are following the direction of the supreme court. All the summons were subject matter of the plea before the supreme court.
ED is investigating a case of alleged money laundering in Delhi Waqf Board.
He was summoned by the court on a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for non-compliance of summons issued to him by the agency.
On April 5, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a complaint case against Ullah Khan for non-attendance of summons issued to him in the Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case.
The ED moved a complaint case under section 174 of the IPC, 1860, read with section 63 (4) of
PMLA, 2002 for non-attendance in compliance with Section 50, PMLA, 2002.
The Delhi High Court on March 11 dismissed Amanat Ullah Khan’s anticipatory bail plea.
Thereafter, while hearing the plea of Amanat Ullah Khan, the Supreme Court directed Amanat Ullah Khan to appear before the ED.
He was summoned several times by the ED but he didn’t appear. His earlier anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by the trial court.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had dismissed the plea with some strict remarks and observations. She said that elected representatives and public figures are not above the law. A separate class can not be created for political leaders.
Justice Sharma had also rejected the petitioner’s contention that he he might have been arrested if he had appeared before the ED.
The High Court said that if such submissions were to be accepted that the accused might get arrested during the investigation, no person would ever enter the office of any investigating agency.
This court cannot allow a new jurisprudence or a new set of rules, the High Court said.
“Even the lawmakers should know that disobeying the law will have legal consequences, as all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law,” Justice Sharma said.
The bench further said that investigating agencies in India had the right to conduct an investigation. To conclude, a MLA or any public figure is not above the law of the land.
“The actions of such public figures are observed closely by the public. This sets a bad precedent,” Justice Sharma pointed out.
The High Court had observed that the AAP MLA avoided six summonses issued by the ED. The High Court said that such avoidance of multiple summons is impermissible by law.
The High Court also noted that the property in question was purchased for Rs 36 crore and Rs 27 crore was paid in cash. The existence of two agreements to sell also creates doubt.
The high court said, “People also have a right to know what is the truth when their leader whom they have elected is being probed.”
“Seeing the conduct of the accused for non-joining the investigation, there is no ground for granting anticipatory bail,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
This case is related to the purchase of a property worth Rs 36 crore in the Okhla area at the alleged behest of Amanat Ullah Khan, who is also a sitting MLA from that area.
A charge sheet has already been filed against four accused persons and one firm.
It has been alleged that Rs 100 crore Waqf Properties were given on lease illegally. It is also alleged that 33 contractual employees were appointed to the Delhi Waqf Board during the chairmanship of Amanat Ullah Khan, who flouted the rules. (ANI)
