Politician Subramanian Swamy filed the original case, a private complaint against Gandhi, others accused them of cheating, criminal conspiracy and usurpation, and newspapers worthy of a link to the Congress party owning tens of millions of property. The trial court in June 2014 ruled that the superficial offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy were filed and the defendants, including Gandhi, were convened.
ED launched a money laundering case based on the predicate offence earlier this month, and filed a complaint in the capital’s special court earlier this month (equivalent to the charge form) against Gandhi and five people under the PMLA. According to ED, the assets of the state pioneer publisher were illegally transferred to a Shell company with a young Indian company controlled by Rahul and Sonia Gandhi.
The trial of predicate crimes has been heard in the trial court for four years. Between March 16, 2021 and March 1 this year, the case was adjourned 18 times and there was no progress.
After the Delhi HC on 22 February 2021, it was in a “litigation before the trial court” against his appeal against the trial court ruling, which rejected his application to call for the convening of certain witnesses.
In an order of 11 February 2021, the trial court pointed out that Swamy applied when the matter was in the cross-examination stage of the complainant. It said the application “should take into account after the complainant’s evidence is concluded.” In the call seen by ET, Swamy said: “Unrecognized that under Article 244, the petitioner has the right to apply to the magistrate to summon witnesses at any stage, to summon witnesses at any stage, to “support complaints to support appeals.” Referring to the later stage, “in the later stage (in the transgender application) may be denied because it may be an application within driving range.” Save valuable time in the trial court”.
“What is to be produced is a document that has been produced in the High Court, which is also a subsequent event, and there is no difference in the fact that the petitioner himself is cross-examined.” He sought to summon some witnesses.
In passing the February 2021 order, the magistrate judge relied on extensively on the verdict passed by his predecessor on May 26, 2018, which has expressed concern about the delay in the trial.
The magistrate said in a 2018 order: “In a lawsuit filed in a private complaint, the complainant must first begin the evidence under section 244 of 244 cr.pc, after which the question of the allegation was raised”.
The magistrate judge believes that “once the defendant is called, the case is now reached at the stage of advance evidence”. According to the order, “The complainant is moving the application u/s 91 cr.pc or place the application on the record file without any purpose, but is actually conducting a trial. The reason is that in a criminal trial, once the stage of evidence has arrived, once the document or record appears, there is no record of any record.
The 2018 order said the trial had been postponed, noting that the first date of leading evidence for prosecution was February 20, 2016, “so far, no evidence has begun.” The order said that the trial must therefore be put back on the right path and directed the complainant to first regard himself as the first witness to prosecution and to lay the foundation for his case. It said: “After that witnesses, formally or otherwise, prove that the complainant wants to further prove his case.”
