Bombay High Court refuses relief (for now) to former Shiv Sena MP Anandrao Adsul in money laundering case

The Bombay High Court on Friday refused to grant ad-interim relief to Shiv Sena leader and former Member of Parliament Anandrao Adsul in his plea challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case. .Adsul challenged the proceedings by ED on two grounds: That the proceedings initiated by the ED were at the instance of the political rivals with the support of the ruling party at Centre (BJP).That the offence of money laundering involving City Co-operative Bank had been initiated on a complaint filed by Adsul himself with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW)."Proceedings initiated by ED against Adsul "clearly smack of political vendetta being settled through enforcement agencies which hare armed with powers of civil court during investigation and have been elevated to the status of Court". .Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud stated on behalf of Adsul that the proceedings before the ED had been initiated based on complaint of Ravi Rana, husband of Navneet Kaur BJP MP. On petitions including one by Adsul, the Bombay High Court had cancelled and confiscated Rana's caste certificate on the ground that it was obtained by "systemic fraud" which was eventually stayed by the Supreme Court. .Adsul moved the High Court urgently seeking a stay on the summons and any unserved warrant against him.He also prayed for directions to be issued to the ED of no coercive action against him. .Chandrachud argued that Rana had complained in retaliation to Adsul's challenge to the caste certificate of his wife.It was also contended that the summons were issued to Adsul on days when the caste certificate matter was being heard by High Court and Supreme Court. So far, ED had issued three summons, which was the part of challenge in the present petition. .He emphasised that the case of money laundering came to light for the first time based on Adsul's complaint to EOW."Based on my complaint they are proceeding against me!" Chandrachud stated. .Chandrachud also prayed for a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report which was not furnished to him so far in compliance of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. .Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh with Advocate Shreeram Sirsath, opposed the plea and asked the Court to consider Adsul's conduct when the summons was issued to him. "When ED went to serve the summon, he created a scene. Got himself an ambulance after all he is an influential person. When he went to a hospital and was found to be fine then he went to another hospital and got himself admitted. This conduct has to be looked into," Singh stated. .Singh's contention was that ED's investigation also included tracing the proceeds of crime in the money laundering case. So, every party that was involved in the laundering of proceeds of crime was to be investigated. "He may not be an accused. The person in proceeds of crime may not been accused in the original crime, but from where the money has come and gone has to be considered. At the stage of summons it is the domain of the agency how the investigation is carried out," the ASG said. .Singh also opposed the arguments of providing copy of ECIR for the reason that the ground was not pleaded in the petition. .When the Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar stated that they were not inclined to grant relief, Chandrachud argued that the summons was not clear on the aspect of why Adsul has been summoned and hence there was always an apprehension of arrest. .To this, the Bench pointed out that an earlier summons of ED contained a list of documents which were sought from Adsul clarifying the purpose of the summons. "It is not uncommon for informant to become accused. We are not inclined to grant any relief today. We can pass a reasoned order or post it for further hearing," the Court said..At the request of Chandrachud, the Court granted time to add appropriate grounds in the petition, and posted the matter for further hearing on October 8, 2021.