ED opposes M3M group director’s plea in court

Opposing M3M group director Roop Bansal’s plea for quashing an FIR registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) today submitted before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that lack of sanction could not be raised by the petitioner as a ground to seek the relief.

Appearing before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul’s Bench, ED counsel Zoheb Hussain and senior panel counsel for the Union of India Lokesh Narang submitted that the present petition was filed seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that prior approval from the appropriate government authority under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been taken before proceeding in the matter involving a Judge. But the plea could be raised by Bansal as he was a private individual and not a public servant.

The ED submitted that even if it was assumed without admitting that a public servant could not be prosecuted for want of sanction, it would not mean that the prosecution against private individuals for aiding and abetting the offences alleged under the PC Act or the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC would cease to exist.

The allegations against Bansal are that he conspired with a judge to get benefits. His stand in the matter has all along been that a sanction is required before proceeding against a judge. “To call him a judge and say that because the high court has given… HC sanction has nothing to do with a mandatory statutory prosecution sanction,” senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had contended on his behalf during a previous date of hearing.

He had added: “There is a judgment in the same proceedings by a special anti-corruption judge –– PMLA Judge, Panchkula, which notes that that judge had no cases of M3M group pending before him and none were dealt with him in his capacity till April 17, 2023, which is a relevant cut-off date… I am an accused. If the court’s finding in the PMLA Panchkula court is that judge never dealt with my cases, how can I be in a 120-B (criminal conspiracy) with a public servant or a judge?” Singhvi had questioned.

Haryana Tribune