New Delhi, Dec 21 (UNI) A Delhi Court on Saturday framed notice against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the non-compliance of summons case registered by Enforcement Directorate(ED).
Counsel for the accused in his arguments by relying a judgment that it is inherent in section 251 CrPC of bounden duty of the court to go through the chargesheet before framing charge/notice and discharge if case is not made out.
He argued that this court before framing notice of accusation has to satisfy itself if all the ingredients of offence alleged i.e. section 174 IPC are made out.
The Counsel further submitted that section 174 IPC requires ‘legal competence’ of the public servant to issue summons, notice, etc and in the facts of the present case, the complainant side has not produced any material to even prima facie to show that the complainant, even though was a public servant, had legal competence to issue notice to the accused.
Counsel for ED submitted that the legal question as to power to discharge of Magistrate at this stage has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court and Delhi High Court and states that these challenges are to be considered during trial and legal competence of the public servant is derived from the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal after hearing argument of both sides said, ” Section 174 IPC requires mens rea of intentional omission to attend at place or time in obedience to a summon, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, wherein the person required is legally bound to attend. The actus reus is complete when there is omission”.
The court said,” In the complaint, the complainant is stated to be working as Assistant Director in Directorate of Enforcement and as such a public servant u/s 40 of PML Act. The complaint has been filed that the Investigation Officer Jogender was investigating ECIR No.ECIR/HIU-II/14/2012 and as such had issued summons to the accused u/s 50 of PML Act on 30.10.2023, 18.12.2023 and
22.12.2023 to appear on 02.11.2023, 21.12.2023 and 03.01.2024, respectively at the office i.e. HIU-II, Gate No.3, B Block, Enforcement Directorate, Parvartan Bhawan, A.P.J Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi”.
Counsel for ED further alleged that these summons were duly served on the accused, however he failed to comply and as such intentionally omitted.
The complaint also alleges that u/s 50 PML Act any person so summoned by IO is legally bound to attend.
The court said ” Considering the allegations as above made in the complaint, this court find sufficient material to frame notice against the accused u/s 174 IPC. At this stage, this court is neither to consider the veracity of allegations made nor is to see if the allegations are established. The only requirement is sufficient material to proceed to trial”.
The court said, ” Notice of accusation u/s 251 CrPC for offence punishable u/s 174 IPC has been framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The accused has appeared through VC, however, the counsel for accused whose vakalatnama is in record is appearing physically and has accepted the notice of accusation on behalf of accused.
The plea of the accused has been recorded in the notice of accusation and the said notice has been signed by accused’s counsel on his behalf”.
“Matter be now listed for CE on 10.01.2025 at 10:30 am., the court said”.
