SC says sessions court has power to summon additional accused
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
6 hours ago
- News18
AgustaWestland: Not safe for me to leave Delhi, Christian Michel tells court
Last Updated: New Delhi, Aug 6 (PTI) Christian Michel James, the alleged middleman in the AgustaWestland VVIP chopper deal case, on Wednesday informed a Delhi court that it was not safe for him to leave the capital. Special judge Sanjay Jindal was hearing his plea for release on the grounds that he had undergone the maximum period of sentence of seven years for the purported offences. 'If I put one step out in Delhi, new charges will be placed on me. It is not safe. I do not want to come back to this court with new charges," James said. James, who was granted bail in the CBI case by the Supreme Court on February 18 this year and in the ED case by the Delhi High Court on March 4, has not yet furnished the bail bonds and remains in Tihar jail, awaiting the renewal of his passport. On March 7, he offered another court to 'finish his sentence" and leave India instead of walking out on bail due to 'security risk." Continuing his submissions before the court, James said, 'The court did nothing about the man who attempted to kill me." Making an emotional plea, James said he was being treated like a convict. 'I am at a loss. Three years ago, I was a different man. I am not a human being anymore. My wife had not divorced me then, and my business was also surviving," he said. James continued, 'Other people are allowed to attend the trial on the internet (through video-conferencing), why not me?" The court asked him the difference between bail and release. 'Bail will also be an interim release. Trial will continue," the court said. James' counsel said that his client could not stay in a hotel or rented accommodation as he did not have an identity card. 'The British High Commission should take charge of him. They should provide temporary accommodation," the counsel said. The court posted the matter for September 10. On Tuesday, the ED filed a reply stating, 'With respect to the submissions made by the accused Christian Michel James that he has already undergone the period of maximum sentence prescribed for the offences for which he was extradited to India from United Arab Emirates, so, he is entitled to be released by virtue of the provisions of section 436 A of CrPC it is most respectfully submitted that the aforesaid submissions are misleading and devoid of any merits." Section 436 A of the erstwhile CrPC deals with maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained. On August 4, the ED and CBI opposed the plea of Michel's counsel that he was entitled to be released under the provisions of Section 436A of the CrPC. James was extradited from Dubai in December 2018 and was subsequently arrested by the CBI and the ED. The CBI, in its chargesheet, claimed an estimated loss of 398.21 million euros (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer due to the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010, for the supply of VVIP choppers worth 556.262 million euros. The ED chargesheet led against James in June 2016 alleged that he received 30 million euros (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland. PTI MNR AMK AMK view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Magistrates must not authorise detention mechanically': Telangana HC sets aside man's judicial remand over 24-hour norm
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday quashed the judicial remand of a man accused in a cheating case, holding that he was produced before the magistrate beyond the mandatory 24-hour period from the time of detention as prescribed under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS). Justice N Tukaramji pronounced the order while allowing a criminal revision after the petitioner's counsel, Mohammed Azhar, argued that the remand order was invalid on several grounds. Following an FIR at Malakpet police station, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the magistrate after the mandatory 24-hour period from the time of detention. The counsel for the petitioner substantiated this claim by citing the remand case diary, which recorded the apprehension at approximately 10.15 pm on July 7 this year and production before the court at about 11.35 pm on July 8. This delay of approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes, beyond the 24-hour period under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, rendered the remand illegal. Additional Public Prosecutor Jithender Rao Veeramalla conceded that the petitioner was produced beyond the 24-hour period from the time of arrest. Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel contended that the alleged offences, which fall under sections 318(4) and 204 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), are punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another and Section 41A of the CrPC/35(3) of the BNSS, the counsel argued that the petitioner should have been served with a notice for appearance instead of being arrested. 'It has been expressly directed that magistrates must not authorise detention mechanically but must record detailed and reasoned orders reflecting judicial satisfaction. Failure to comply with these directives renders the remand unlawful and invites judicial or departmental scrutiny,' the order read. The court found that the impugned remand order in this case merely noted the fact of production and other details without addressing the legality of the arrest, the delay in production, or the statutory mandates. 'While these grounds may provide a basis for arrest in theory, they must be assessed in light of the procedural safeguards mandated by law and judicial precedent. The record fails to show that the magistrate made such an assessment,' the order read. As a result of these findings, the court set aside the remand order and directed the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to take immediate steps to secure the release of the petitioner. Within one week of his release, the petitioner is required to execute a personal bond for Rs 10,000 and furnish two sureties of the same amount. The petitioner must also remain available and cooperate with the ongoing judicial proceedings, the court said.
India.com
16 hours ago
- India.com
VVIP Chopper Deal Case: Michel's Extradition Sought For Trial Of Offence Of Money Laundering Also, Says EDVVIP Chopper Deal Case: Michel's Extradition Sought For Trial Of Offence Of Money Laundering Also, Says ED
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), while opposing a plea of alleged middleman Christian Michel James seeking release in the VVIP chopper deal case, stated that besides other offenses, his extradition was sought for trial in the money laundering case also. The ED filed a reply on Tuesday opposing the plea pending before the court of Special Judge Sanjay Jindal at Rouse Avenue Court. The ED said that the plea is "misleading" and "devoid of any merits." It deserves to be dismissed. It is also stated that Article 17 of the 'Extradition Treaty' with the UAE not only permits trial for offences in respect of which extradition of an accused person is sought, but also for the offences connected. The reply of ED also mentioned that the reading of the judgement of September 2, 2018, passed by the Dubai Supreme Court, would show that besides other offences, Michele's extradition was also sought in respect of the offence of money laundering. The agency also stated that James was arrested in the money laundering case on December 22, 2018. The period of maximum punishment of 7 years has not expired yet. In this scenario, the provision of section 436A providing a release does not apply to the accused. On Monday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had argued that Christian Michel James cannot be and should not be released without pleading guilty after framing of charges, he is an accused in. British National James seeking release from custody on the ground that he has spent a period in custody equivalent to a maximum punishment of 7 years. He is on bail in both the CBI and ED's Money laundering case, but still in custody due to non-filing of bail bond. He has to surrender his passport to the court, which has already expired. James was extradited to India on December 4, 2018 and was arrested by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case. Special CBI Judge Sanjay Jindal heard the arguments on the application moved by Christian Michel James. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Senior Advocate DP Singh, along with Manu Mishra, had argued that James shouldn't be granted release from jail just because he has undergone a period of 7 years in custody. It was further argued by the CBI's counsel that framing of charges has to take place. In case, even if, charges under section 467 (Forgery) IPC, not framed against him, he cannot be released without pleading guilty. Section 476 IPC has maximum punishment upto life imprisonment. "Only then can my lords say that his sentence is now over. Otherwise, he has to approach a constitutional court," the CBI counsel had submitted. On the other hand, advocate Aljo K Joseph, counsel for the accused, had argued that he was entitled to be released under the provisions of Section 436A of the CrPC. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) NK Matta, who appeared for the ED. He submitted that the condition of extradition doesn't apply to the case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as he was arrested subsequently to the arrest by the CBI. SPP Matta also submitted that remission can be considered only after punishment. The seven years of punishment have not been completed in the ED's case. The court will continue to hear submissions on Wednesday also.
