Here is what Mumbai court said while sending Nawab Malik to ED custody
India Today
NCP leader Nawab Malik was remanded to ED custody on Wednesday, but the detailed court order has just come out. Here's what it says.
"Sufficient time would be required to investigate the proceeds of crime which traversed over the last 20 years," observed a special Court in Mumbai while remanding Maharashtra cabinet minister Nawab Malik to Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody till March 3.
Malik was remanded to ED custody on Wednesday, February 23, but it is only now that the detailed order is out.Malik was arrested by the ED on Wednesday for investigating charges that Malik had allegedly purchased a property at a rate lower than market value from underworld don Dawood Ibrahim's men. This charge was based on the claims of former chief minister Devendra Fadnavis.
After a lengthy four-hour hearing, the special judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) held that Malik's custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth all ramifications involved in the crime. While ED had sought 14 days of custody, the court granted it for eight days.
"It is imperative to note that custodial interrogation of the accused [Malik] is necessary to collect seized, recovered documents at the instance of the accused. The proceeds of crime have traversed in the last 20 years and more. Therefore, sufficient time is required to be granted for the investigation of the offence," the order stated.
The ED submitted that prima facie Malik seemed guilty of the offence of money laundering and his custody was required to be confronted with other persons whose statements had been recorded during the investigation under the PMLA.
Malik, on the other hand, had opposed the remand, stating that the entire case was hit by Article 20 of the Constitution which prohibited retrospective application of the PMLA. It was also contended that he was illegally arrested without notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
After reverting to the facts of the case, and the material on record, the special judge concluded that there was material to indicate that Malik was in possession of the property. The court deduced that it cannot be stated that no offence can be made out against Malik.
