The Special Court which was hearing the case against the Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain filed by CBI has said that as per the judicial propriety demands it would not hear the case any further on view of the recent transfer of the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Jain in another court.
Special Judge Geetanjali Goel observed that the case by Enforcement Directorate stems from the same allegations, has now been transferred to another court, it would be appropriate that this court does not deal with the CBI case as well.
The court order stated that if the facts and circumstances which arose during the course of arguments on bail application in Directorate of Enforcement v. Satyendar Kumar Jain and subsequent transfer of the said matter from this Court, it is prudent to decide that the court keeps away from this al case to avoid any apprehension of bias.
The matter was directed to be placed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge for appropriate orders.
During the hearing, Judge Goel was apprised about an application which was filed seeking withdrawl of SLP by Jain before the Supreme Court, challenging the transfer of the money laundering case to another judge.
The counsel of Satyendra Jain said there was no legal bar on the court hearing the matter in view of legal provisions. He referred to Section 44 (offences triable by sessions courts) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) along with citing Apex court decision in Vijay Madanlal v. Union of India case.
The Counsel by CBI also submitted that they had no objection to Judge Goel hearing the matter. The court, however, felt otherwise, and placed the proceedings before the Principal District and Sessions Judge.
The Principal District and Sessions Judge on September 24 had accepted the plea of the ED and has transferred the case to special Judge Vikas Dhull.
The CBI had initially registered a case against Jain under Sections 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) read with 13(e) (disproportionate assets) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The case was filed against Jain for acquiring properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017 (check period) which he could not satisfactorily account for.