The Delhi High Court has directed the trial court to postpone the arguments on framing of charges in the money laundering cases involving Congress MP Karti Chidambaram. These cases pertain to the alleged Chinese visa scam and the Aircel Maxis deal.
The direction came from Justice Ravinder Dudeja, who issued notice on Karti Chidambaram’s plea, wherein he requested the court to defer framing of charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) until the trial court frames charges in the scheduled offences, which in this case are the CBI-registered FIRs.
Read also: Delhi High Court: Examination-In-Chief Under Domestic Violence Act Can Be Filed Through Affidavit
The plea filed by Chidambaram raises a crucial legal issue — whether charges under the PMLA can be framed before the charges in the predicate or scheduled offences are finalized.
“It is the petitioner’s case that unless the trial court completes the process of framing charges in the scheduled offences, the proceedings under PMLA must not advance to the next stage,” the plea contends.
Read also: Channel Placement Agreement Does Not Allow Broadcaster To Demand Bouquet Listing: Delhi High Court
On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) relied on the Supreme Court’s interim directions in the S. Martin case dated April 4. The ED emphasized that as per the apex court’s order, trials under both the scheduled offence and the PMLA can proceed simultaneously, though the final judgment must be reserved until both trials are completed.
The ED further argued that both cases are independent in nature, and therefore, there is no legal hurdle in continuing with the proceedings in the trial court regarding framing of charges under the PMLA.
However, the High Court made an important observation:
“The existence of a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime being derived from criminal activity related to that scheduled offence are sine qua non — essential requirements — not only to initiate prosecution under PMLA but also to continue with it,” the Court observed.
Read also: S.54(11) of CGST Act | Refund Cannot Be Withheld Merely on Commissioner's Opinion: Delhi High Court
The court clarified that the S. Martin case dealt with whether the trial of the scheduled offence must conclude before framing charges under PMLA. But in the present matter, Karti Chidambaram is only seeking a temporary halt — that is, to keep the framing of charges in abeyance until charges are framed in the predicate offences.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, noting that:
“As evident from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, there is an emphasis on the words ‘discharge/acquitted’ of the scheduled offence. Therefore, prima facie, the discharge of the petitioner in the predicate offence would certainly impact the PMLA case, as in case of discharge, there would be no offence of money laundering against him.”
Taking note of this, the Court said the matter requires further consideration, and hence issued notice on Chidambaram’s plea.
The case is now listed for hearing on May 29.
“In the meantime, the learned Special Judge is directed to defer the arguments on charge to a date after the one fixed by this Court,” the High Court ordered.
Chidambaram had earlier challenged the trial court’s decision to reject his applications that sought to delay the arguments on charge in both the money laundering cases.
Background of the Cases:
The Enforcement Directorate had filed money laundering cases against Karti Chidambaram, S. Bhaskararaman, and Vikas Makharia in two separate instances:
- Chinese Visa Scam (2011):
This case involves the alleged issuance of visas to 263 Chinese nationals when P. Chidambaram, Karti’s father, was serving as the Union Home Minister. The ED alleged that bribes were paid to secure visas illegally. - Aircel Maxis Deal:
The ED alleges that during P. Chidambaram’s tenure as Finance Minister, he illegally approved the Aircel-Maxis deal in exchange for kickbacks, which were then routed through companies linked to Karti Chidambaram.
Both these cases are under the scanner of central agencies, including the CBI and ED, for violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act, FEMA, and PMLA.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr. Akshat Gupta, Mr. Sidak Singh Anand, Mr. Shrey Nautiyal and Ms. Madhusruthi N. Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for ED, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Kunal Kochhar, Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Daanish Abbasi, Advocates
Title: KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM v. ED & other connected matter
