first_imgDuring the arguments in court, Nalinis counsel Vijayanarayan alleged that the prosecution had “gone beyond its line” and dubbed it as “persecution” and “an attempt for political reasons” to harass (her).He claimed that even the CBI chargesheet had not mentioned anything about the amount received by Nalini as professional fee as being proceeds of the alleged crime (Saradha scam).The other counsels (in the TV channel deal) had not been summoned, he submitted, adding that the fee was received when the scam was yet to come to light.”An attempt has been made for political reasons and unless the court interferes, anything can happen,” he submitted.Explaining her appearance before the Company Law Board and the Delhi High Court in the matter related to a dispute over the TV channel purchase deal, Nalinis counsel said, according to an agreement between Manoranjana and Sudipto Sen, the Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd, run by Sen, had committed to professionally and legally assist in her ongoing litigations.Accordingly, Sen, through his real estate company Saradha Realty India Limited, paid the “professional fee” of about Rs one crore to Nalini.But, the CBI later registered a case against Sen for failure to return deposits made in his chit funds. It was in this connection, the professional fee paid to Nalini from one of Sens companies was inquired by the CBI.The counsel also said Nalini had fully explained to the CBI about the receipt of the professional fee.It was in this connection, the ED had issued four summonses for her appearance, which was challenged by her.advertisementHe further submitted that Nalini had also sent her authorised representative to the ED in response to earlier summonses and the questionnaire was fully answered and all the documents were submitted to the agency.Stating that the same questionnaire was again issued by the ED, he said in the fourth and last summons, the words “authorised representative” were struck off.Assistant Solicitor General G Rajagopalan, appearing on behalf of the ED, submitted that the matter was only in the stage of summons. Mere summoning itself could not be assumed as the person had been made an accused.He also said the ED had summoned the petitioner as it might not have been satisfied with the answers furnished by the “authorised” person.”It is only in the stage of collecting evidence and the officer who issues summons does not know about the person and personalities,” he said, apparently rejecting the charge of “political reasons”. PTI CORR VS RClast_img