Delhi HC closes benami proceedings against Delhi minister

The Delhi high court on Monday closed the benami proceedings against AAP MLA Satyendar Jain and others in the light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Benami law

The Delhi high court on Monday closed the benami proceedings against AAP MLA Satyendar Jain and others in the light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Benami law.

Delhi HC closes benami proceedings against Delhi minister

In August this year, the apex court had held that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 did not have retrospective application, and the authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the legislation coming into force.

Granting relief to Jain and others, justice Yashwant Varma said that in wake of the SC’s ruling that all Benami property cases, prior to 2016 shall stand quashed, proceedings against the legislator and other petitioner should also be quashed.

“Accordingly, in view of the law as declared by the SC, instant writ petitions are allowed. All impugned proceedings under the enactment shall stand closed,” the court said in an oral order.

The court’s order comes while hearing a batch of pleas by Jain and several others seeking to quash the proceedings against them under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.

On the last date (September 20), the court had directed the authorities, including the Income Tax Department to not take any action, coercive or otherwise, against Jain under the amended Benami law.

Jain had filed the petition in 2017 against the proceedings initiated against him under the new Benami law.

According to Jain, the alleged Benami transactions, from the proceeds of which certain attached assets were claimed to have been purchased, took place between 2011 to March 31, 2016, and hence, the amendment which came into effect in November 2016 would not apply.

He had earlier prayed for a stay on the proceedings before the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the Initiating Officer’s order to provisionally attach the assets allegedly belonging to him was passed without allowing him to cross-examine witnesses.

His counsel had told the court that he was not given any opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses, whose statements have been blindly relied upon to arrive at the findings.

He had thus sought that either the proceedings under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act be stayed or the adjudicating authority be directed not to pass a final order till his petition in the high court is finally decided.