A Special Court in the national capital on Saturday issued contempt of court notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), after a video went viral on the social media this morning, allegedly showing Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain getting a full body massage in Tihar Prison.
Special Judge Vikas Dhull of Rouse Avenue Court issued notice on an application filed by the legal team of Jain, seeking contempt action against the ED for leaking the CCTV video, despite an undertaking given in the court.
The Court then fixed November 21 as the next date of hearing in the case.
Jain had approached the Court after an alleged CCTV video footage went viral on the social media this morning, showing the Minister getting a full body massage in Tihar Prison.
Dated September 13, the alleged video showed the Minister lying on his bed and reading some papers, while a man gave him a foot massage.
Another video was today shared by BJP national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla on his official Twitter handle, wherein a man is seen massaging Jain’s legs and back, before proceeding to give him a full head massage.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had 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.
CBI alleged that Jain had acquired movable properties in the name of various persons between 2015 and 2017, which he could not satisfactorily account for.
The AAP leader was subsequently arrested on April 5 by the ED on the basis of its investigation into the money laundering aspect under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
ED had also attached immovable properties worth Rs 4.81 crore belonging to M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, M/s Indo Metal Impex Pvt Ltd, M/s Paryas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt Ltd, M/s JJ Ideal Estate Pvt Ltd, and other persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
The enforcement agency alleged that these companies, which were ‘beneficially-owned and controlled’ by Jain, had received accommodation entries amounting to Rs 4.81 crore from shell companies against cash transferred to Kolkata-based entry operators through a hawala route.
Jain’s Counsel denied the claim, arguing that he was nowhere related to the dealings of the companies, as he was only a ‘minority’ shareholder in them. He further said that a minority shareholder could not exercise control over the companies.
As per Hariharan, a director was only an agent of the company. He said the shareholding pattern of the companies showed that even in the best possible scenario, ED could only attribute a sum of Rs 59 lakh to Jain, adding that the notional value being attributed to Jain was an ‘exercise alien to law’.