stay on trial direction Which allowed the lawyer remain present in distance during interrogation of AAP minister Satyendar Kumar Jain by Enforcement Directorate in alleged money laundering The Delhi High Court said on Saturday that there was neither any FIR nor complaint against Him, can not as a matter of Right to attend of His lawyer during the “session” of registration of His statement.”
Jain has been imprisoned in central agency custody on From May 31 to June 9. “Since there are no concerns (of threat or coercion) in The current issue, and then as a matter of This is correct direction It should not have been given in Register of Judge Yogesh Khanna said: in Application dated June 3rd.
court also He said that even otherwise, the entire recording of The statement is being videotaped and recorded, which will “certainly dispel” the anxiety of No coercion or threat to Jane.
???? Limited time offer | Express Premium with light advertisement for just 2 rupees/day ???????? Click here for subscribe ????
Better of Express Premium
excellent
excellent
excellentThe court kept it on Friday on Implementation Directorate petition against Court of First Instance direction. In order, the file bench Jawhar said issue Is whether Jain has the right to attend of His lawyer during registration of Statement under section 50 of ban of Money laundering law in a safe place distance From where the lawyer can see and not hear.
In Sandeep Jain (a separate case), The Division Bench of This court held the arrest of Use of coercive measures need to be real And the like… so that the principle of Presence of a advocateVisible, but inaudible distance The court said while acting of The residency application was moved by ED.
in regards to of Court Note No FIR Report or Complaint in The case, a counselo who Back in In the case, he told The Indian Express: “What the court means to say is that the FIR is in The original The CBI case but the ED has only registered ECIR (Enforcement Status Information Report) so far, and the PMLA complaint is registered after that. It’s basically excessive technology.”
Allow to pray made by Jain’s counsel on Tuesday, special judge of Ross Avenue Court in The remand order said: “It is drawn at the time of investigation/interrogation of the accused, one advocate of The accused may remain Present in the safe distance Where can he see the accused without hearing him.” Attorney General Tushar Mehta was against the prayer “strongly”, who Represent the ED before the Court of First Instance.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who represents the Emergency Chamber, argued Friday in the Supreme Court that the authorization granted by the lower court conflicts with various Supreme court decisions and tell bench that record audio and video of being interrogated.
.
