The Enforcement Directorate had moved a remand application before the court of principal sessions Judge ML Tahaliyani on March 11 in Mumbai. However, the plea was rejected.
Stung by a Mumbai court's rejection of its plea for custodial interrogation of Hasan Ali Khan, the Enforcement Directorate today moved the Supreme Court, challenging refusal of its plea against the Pune-based stud farm owner allegedly involved in stashing black money abroad.
A bench of Justice B Sudershan Reddy and Justice SS Nijjar would take up the plea at 2 pm. The bench had earlier chided the Centre for failing to subject Khan and other alleged money launderers to custodial interrogation.
In pursuant of the apex court's direction, the ED had moved a remand application before the court of Principal Sessions Judge ML Tahaliyani on March 11. However, the Directorate's plea was rejected. While rejecting the ED's remand application, judge Tahaliyani had observed that had it had failed to back its charges in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
"No material evidence has been presented by the ED that shows any scheduled offence has been committed by Khan," Justice Tahaliyani observed. Khan was granted conditional bail, was barred from leaving the city for five days and was directed to report to the ED office every day.
The court had also rejected the argument that USD 700,000 was transferred from Khan's Sarasin Bank account in Switzerland to the account of S K financial services based in United Kingdom maintained by Barclays Bank London through Citibank, New York and accepted defence lawyer I P Bagadia's contention that the account holder was one H A Kahn and not Khan.
UBS Switzerland has denied that Khan was hoarding USD 8 billion in the bank. The Mumbai court said there was no material to show that the money was transferred to UBS.
Khan is facing a Rs 70,000 crore tax demand notice from the Income-Tax Department as well as the ED probe. The ED had arrested 53-year-old Khan on March 7 after being pulled up by the Supreme Court for its failure to ensure his custodial interrogation.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}