High court closes benami case against AAP’s Satyendar Jain, cites SC ruling
The Supreme Court in August ruled that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, as amended in 2016, could not be invoked to initiate or continue prosecution or confiscation for transactions alleged to have been entered prior to the enactment of the legislation
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Monday closed proceedings against Delhi minister Satyendar Jain under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, noting the Supreme Court ruling that the law did not have retrospective application. In August, the Supreme Court held that the 2016 version of the Benami law could not be invoked to initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions alleged to have been entered prior to the legislation coming into force.
Granting relief to Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) Satyendar Jain and others, the high court’s justice Yashwant Varma said that in wake of the SC ruling, proceedings against the legislator and other petitioners 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.
Jain, currently lodged in Tihar jail, was arrested on May 30 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The court order came during the hearing into a batch of petitions by Jain and several others seeking to quash the proceedings against them under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
On September 20 when the court last took up the requests, the high court directed the authorities, including the Income Tax department to not take any action, coercive or otherwise, against Jain under the amended Benami law.
Jain filed the petition in 2017 against the proceedings initiated against him under the new Benami law.
The AAP MLA said that the alleged benami transactions took place between 2011 to March 31, 2016, and hence, the amendment which came into effect in November 2016 would not apply.
He earlier sought 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 told the court that he was not given any opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses, whose statements have been blindly relied upon to arrive at the findings.
Stay updated with all top Cities including, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai and more across India. Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News along with Delhi Election 2025 and Delhi Election Result 2025 Live, New Delhi Election Result Live, Kalkaji Election Result Live at Hindustan Times.
