The ED instructed a particular PMLA court docket that the cash laundering case in opposition to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut will not be depending on any complainant.
Sanjay Raut was arrested by the ED on August 1 in cash laundering case. (Photograph: File)
- Case in opposition to Sanjay Raut will not be depending on complainant: ED
- Case has its personal footing: ED to PMLA court docket
- The court docket requested the complainant to method police for defense
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday instructed a particular PMLA court docket that the cash laundering case in opposition to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut has its personal footing and isn’t depending on any complainant.
Advocate Venegaonkar, showing for the ED, “The ED case stands by itself footing and never that of any complainant. No person speaks for ED besides ED.”
On Friday, a witness within the case instructed the court docket that she was being threatened for statements in opposition to Sanjay Raut. Advocate Ranjeet Sangle showing for Sapna Patkar, the witness, instructed the particular court docket that she is without doubt one of the prime witnesses within the case and she or he is being threatened.
READ | Supreme Courtroom asks Centre to border coverage for early launch of convicts
Advocate Sangle pointed to an audio recording of threats being meted out to her. Advocate Manoj Mohite showing for Sanjay Raut clarified that these clips are mentioned to be from 2016.
Earlier, Patkar had alleged that she was being threatened and the native police stations weren’t registering her criticism.
Nonetheless, the choose refused to listen to Sangle, saying that this was a case between the investigating company and the court docket for remand of the accused and that nobody else may intervene in between.
When advocate Sangle continued by stating that Patkar was being threatened until date, the choose mentioned “He is below arrest. How can he threaten? The proceedings earlier than the court docket is concerning inquiry that’s confined to progress of the investigation. Whether or not additional remand is justified or not that’s what is to be decided. This isn’t a bail software.”
The choose requested advocate Sangle to point out locus and provision for intervention software to be allowed in a remand listening to. Advocate Sangle mentioned that Patkar had approached the ED for defense however the probe company was not doing the identical.
The court docket then requested Patkar to method the related police station however reiterated that no intervention shall be entertained on this method.
— ENDS —