[ad_1]
A Delhi court on Tuesday reserved orders on a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking revision of a trial court order which asked the agency to immediately withdraw the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by it against former Amnesty International India chief Aakar Patel for alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).
The LOC was issued in connection with a case registered against Amnesty International India in 2019 under the FCRA.
On April 7, the additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) had directed the CBI to forthwith withdraw the LOC against Patel while also asking the CBI, director to tender an apology on behalf of the lapse on the part of his subordinates.
On April 8, special judge Santosh Snei Mann, stayed only the observation on the apology and also asked Patel to not leave the country without the court’s permission. The judge had kept the matter for Tuesday for the arguments by Patel’s counsel while seeking the latter’s response to CBI’s revision plea.
On Tuesday, the CBI counsel Nikhil Goel told the court that they have received sanctions to prosecute Patel. The lawyer also requested the court to stay the entire order passed by the ACMM to avoid any confusion.
Taking note of the submission, special judge Santosh Snehi Mann of Rouse Avenue Court stayed the ACMM’s entire order.
CBI told the court that the Centre has given the go-ahead to the agency to prosecute Amnesty International India and Patel. The council said that Patel has been involved in a number of cases.
The counsel said that he has not been named in the FIR because the organisation’s name is there (Amnesty India). He further contended that Patel “was the person responsible for controlling the organisation”. He argued that the “funds or donations were used for commercial purposes”.
“Money came not only from Amnesty UK but other UK firms,” the CBI counsel said.
The CBI counsel also said the lecture for which he wanted to go was delivered virtually, so there was an option to address online. “Everything is sponsored. It is not our fault that he chooses business class or economy. The additional chief metropolitan magistrate cannot get into civil law and say that mental harassment happened,” the court was told.
Opposing the CBI submissions, Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Patel’s lawyer, argued that other cases against his client “cannot operate as the engine of operation against him”. He said that Patel had once gone to Bangladesh and returned. With respect to the sponsorship of the tickets, he added, on Patel’s behalf, “I am an honourable person. I may have got the offer but I chose not to take it. That’s completely my discretion.”
On April 6, Patel was stopped by immigration authorities at the Bangalore International Airport while he was boarding a flight to the US.
On April 7, a trial court directed the CBI to forthwith withdraw the LOC, saying that it should not be issued on the whims and fancies of the investigating agency as it has a bearing on the fundamental right of an individual.
The court also said that the apprehension raised by the CBI that he (Patel) may evade the trial or flee from justice during the trial has no basis and appears to be mere apprehension without any sufficient grounds.
But on Thursday night, Patel was again stopped at immigration. On Friday, he moved a contempt petition before the judge at the Rouse Avenue Court complex, alleging that he was yet again stopped from flying to the US, in complete violation of the court’s direction.
Challenging this order, CBI contended that the additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) had erred in his reasoning to set aside the LOC.
CBI’s counsel Nikhil Goel told the court that the magistrate “seems to suggest if you are not arrested in the investigation”, a lookout circular could not be issued.
“Ensure that your client does not do any misadventure. He is not going to leave,” the judge said after CBI said Patel tried to leave for the US on Thursday, a fact that was not disputed by his counsel, who pointed out that the lookout circular had been quashed by the magistrate.
[ad_2]
Source link