Delhi Court to hear National Herald Case on May 21 - World News Network

New Delhi [India], May 8 (ANI): In the National Herald case, the Rouse Avenue court on Thursday acknowledged that the notice and prosecution complaint (chargesheet) have been duly served to all proposed accused, including Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others.
However, as the notice for A4 (Sam Pitroda) was reportedly sent to an alternative email today, the court deemed it appropriate to hear arguments on the point of cognisance on the next scheduled date. Consequently, the matter has been deferred to May 21 and 22, 2025.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju requested the court to direct all respondents to submit their replies in the case.
However, Senior Advocate Pramod Dubey, representing Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd–one of the proposed accused firms–opposed the issuance of such a directive at this stage.
Acknowledging the arguments, Special Judge Vishal Gogne stated that he could not issue an order requiring all proposed accused to file a reply. During the hearing, advocates representing other proposed accused requested time to review the extensive case documents.
In the case, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared virtually for Sonia Gandhi, while Senior Advocate RS Cheema represented Rahul Gandhi. Advocate Sushil Bajaj defended Suman Dubey, and Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana represented Young Indian firm.
The Rouse Avenue Court on last date of hearing issued a notice to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and others regarding the chargesheet filed against them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald money laundering case.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne, stated that Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and other proposed accused have the “right to be heard” at the time of cognizance of the chargesheet.
He further underscored that this right is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial, making the issuance of the notice necessary.
In the matter, court stated that since the present complaint is at the stage of consideration regarding notice. The short question is whether a notice is required to be issued to accused under 223.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for ED, submitted that there is no objection to notice being issued and it is liable to be followed by virtue of Tarsem Lal judgment. The court has considered the applicability of the proviso in the present proceeding and has considered the judgment. The court does not find the proviso of 223 to be inconsistent with the provisions of PMLA, said the judge.
None of the material provisions of PMLA can be said to be competing with the provisions of BNSS. The proviso creates a sui generis right for the accused to be heard at pre cognizance stage. The right to be heard at any stage of trial breathes life to right to fair trial. The court said it finds that in adherence to fair trial the right to be heard is not against the provisions of PMLA. Section 223 is a salutory provision and is designed to protect from false implications.
BNSS is therefore a progressive legislation. This benevolent intent should be read in favour of the accused, said the court. Enforcement Directorate, through SV Raju, submitted that under the new legal provisions, cognizance of the complaint (chargesheet) cannot be taken without first hearing the accused. The ED maintained its stance of transparency, stating, “We are not hiding anything. We are giving them the opportunity to present their side before cognizance is taken.”
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) recently filed a prosecution complaint against congress top leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi in connection with the alleged National Herald money laundering case. The said chargesheet also named congress leader Sam Pitroda and Suman Dubey and others including several firms.
The prosecution complaint was filed under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, for the offense of money laundering, as defined under Section 3, read with Section 70, and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
Special Judge Vishal Gogne stated that, as per the submission of the counsel representing the ED, the predicate offense–recorded under complaint case No. 18/2019–includes charges under Sections 403, 406, and 420, read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and is currently under trial at the Rouse Avenue Courts in New Delhi.
The court observed that, under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, the predicate offense must be tried in the same court that has taken cognisance of the money laundering offense under Section 3 of the PMLA.
The court further noted that both offences–the predicate offense and the PMLA offense–must be adjudicated in the same jurisdiction.
The National Herald case is an ongoing legal matter in a Delhi court, originally filed by Indian economist and politician Subramanian Swamy against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, their associated companies, and other individuals. (ANI)

Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News