Tag: Special Public Prosecutor

Delhi Court Sahul Judicial Custody

PFI Case: Delhi Court Remands Sahul To Judicial Custody

By LokMarg

Delhi’s Patiala House Court on Thursday remanded Sahul Hameed to judicial custody who has been arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) from Madurai in connection with a money laundering probe against a banned organisation namely Popular Front of India (PFI).

The Vacation judge Chhavi Kapoor remanded Sahul Hameed to judicial custody till July 6. The accused was produced before the court after the expiry of three days of ED custody.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Naveen Kumar Matta for ED appeared for ED and submitted that an investigation is going on, accused may be remanded to judicial custody.

The fact of the case revolves around receiving higher money in violation of the law. It is alleged by the ED that the accused was operating from Singapore and was involved in the unlawful activities of the organisation.

While seeking an extension of remand on June 19, it was also submitted that the mobile phone of the accused contains relevant details which need to be confronted during the investigation.

According to the Enforcement Directorate, the accused was earlier in the process of collecting illegal money/terror funds from legitimate and illegitimate channels from Singapore and other places. He stated to have been deported to India. Upon receipt of inputs, he was intercepted and could not give an account of certain activities taken by him towards collecting funds for PFI.

ED counsels had informed the Court that the statement of the accused under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was also recorded wherein he remained evasive in giving answers to certain material aspects collected during the investigation. Therefore ED arrested the accused.

Earlier the accused was remanded to ten days in ED remand which was extended on Sunday for one day. Again the accused was produced before the court on Monday.

Recently, the Special Court took cognizance of a chargesheet (Prosecution Complaint) filed by the Enforcement Directorate against several office bearers of Popular Front of India (PFI) in a special court in Delhi.

The court had noted that funds were used for the purpose of unlawful activities, inciting violence, which was allegedly held in North East Delhi in Feb 2020.

According to the ED, the accused persons have revealed that they have played an active role in bogus cash donations on behalf of PFI and in claiming and projecting PFI’s unaccounted cash raised through unknown and suspicious sources as untainted and legitimate.

ED had stated that the PMLA investigation has revealed that as a part of a criminal conspiracy hatched by PFI office bearers over the past many years, suspicious funds from within the country and abroad have been raised by PFI and related entities and have been clandestinely remitted to India in a concealed manner and deposited in their bank accounts over the years.

Earlier in March, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Tribunal upheld the decision of the Central Government decision to ban Popular Front of India and its affiliates.

The Tribunal has dismissed the allegations levelled by the organisation that one particular community is being targeted by the government. The Tribunal while passing the Judgement noted that the members of PFI and its affiliates are indulging in secessionist activities which were contrary to the social fabric of the country.

In September last year, the Ministry of Home Affairs declared the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its affiliates as an ‘Unlawful Association’.

The press statement issued in this regard stated that the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its associates or affiliates/fronts have been found to be involved in serious offences, including terrorism and its financing, targeted gruesome killings, disregarding the constitutional set-up of the country, disturbing public order etc. which are prejudicial to the integrity, security and sovereignty of the country.

Therefore, the Ministry of Home Affairs found it necessary to curb the nefarious activities of the organization and has hence declared the Popular Front of India (PFI) along with its associates or affiliates or fronts including Rehab India Foundation (RIF), Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC), National Confederation of Human Rights Organization (NCHRO), National Women’s Front, Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, Kerala as an ‘unlawful association’ under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Shraddha murder case

Shraddha Case: Court Restrains Media From Publishing, Disseminating Content Of Charge Sheet

By LokMarg

Delhi’s Saket court on Monday passed an order on a plea moved by Delhi Police against a channel and other channels seeking an order restraining them from disseminating content of charge sheet including digital evidence in the Shraddha murder case stating that it is “not” a public document.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Rakesh Kumar Singh passed a restraining order against the channel and list the matter on April 17 for further hearing. The court said that a detailed hearing will be given to both the parties.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad said that the Delhi Police earlier approached the court on credible information that one of the media houses has accessed the audio-video evidence related to the Narco test and the Practo app.

“Delhi Police approached the court on credible information that one of the media houses has accessed the audio-video evidence related to Narco test and Practo app and is likely to disseminate the same today,” Amit Prasad told ANI.

“It has been learnt that some media channels propose to broadcast one such audio-video evidence which is an integral part of the charge sheet filed in case the Shradha Walker murder case. Such telecast/broadcast may cause irreparable damage to the cause of justice in this sensitive case which is sub-judice before the competent court,” read an official release from DCP PRO.

This matter is related to the alleged murder of Shraddha Walkar by his live-in partner Aftab Amin Poonawala on May 18, 2022.

Earlier on April 6, Delhi’s Saket Court adjourned the hearing on arguments on charges against accused Aftab Poonawala in the Shraddha Walkar murder case in view of the lawyers’ strike in lower courts.

Aftab was produced in the court physically. The next date for the hearing is April 14.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Manisha Khurana Kakkar after noting that the lawyers are not appearing due to absenteeism from work adjourned the matter.

The defence counsel is to argue on the point of charge.

Lawyers remained absent from work also on Thursday in protest of the alleged murder of advocate Virender Narwal in the Dwarka area.

On the last date of the hearing on April 3, the court took on record the copy of the judgement filed by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad and Madhukar Pandey.

The court had granted liberty to the counsel of the accused to file a copy of any judgement if he wished to file.

SPP Amit Prasad had submitted that there is a clear judgement that the charge under section 201 of IPC can be framed against the person who destroys the evidence to shield the main offender as well against the person who committed the main offence.

On the earlier date, the counsel for accused Aftab had argued that the charges of murder and disappearance of evidence can’t be framed jointly. These charges can be framed alternatively.

Delhi police opposed the contention and sought time to place Judgements.

Advocate Akshay Bhandari had argued that either I (Aftab) can be charged with murder or for disappearing the evidence.

The accused cannot be charged for murder and disappearance of evidence under sections 302 and 201 of IPC together, the counsel argued. It can be framed alternatively.

He argued that the accused can be charged with the offence of murder under 302 IPC or he can be framed for the offence of shielding the main offender under section 201 IPC.

Advocate Bhandari had argued Mere saying that I (Aftab) am guilty of murder is not sufficient. They have statements of eyewitnesses only. The Prosecution has to show the manner in which the crime was committed.

SPP Amit Prasad rebutted that the joint charges can be framed under section 201 for disappearing the evidence.

He had also submitted that the relied upon a chain of evidence, statement of witnesses, a record of past events and circumstances, forensic evidence, manner of offence etc were submitted before the court.

Delhi police have concluded its arguements on the charge of murder and disappearance of evidence against the accused. (ANI)

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/