Actor Jacqueline Fernandez, recently implicated in a ₹200-crore money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, had moved the Supreme Court seeking an interim stay on the trial against her, according to a report by Live Law. The Bollywood star was drawn into the scandal when the Enforcement Directorate (ED) named her as the 10th accused in its Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
High court ruling against Fernandez
Fernandez approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court rejected her plea to quash proceedings. Justice Anish Dayal, who dismissed her plea on July 3, observed that her concerns about potential self-incrimination could not be grounds to quash the ECIR, since statutory and constitutional protections already exist. “This alone cannot assist the petitioner and release her from the yoke of prosecution under ECIR,” the court said.
The court further explained that the issues raised were subjective and could only be determined during trial. It noted: “Attribution of knowledge for the purposes of PMLA implication may potentially bring in its fold the full range, spectrum and degrees of ‘knowing’. For example, whether turning a blind eye to an obvious fact or disturbing news or a critical disclosure of illegality would amount to ‘knowing’ or not is a matter that, in this Court’s opinion, can be determined post-trial, when the Court has all strands of evidence for appreciation.”
Feeling aggrieved, the actor moved the Supreme Court, contending that the evidence filed by the ED would establish her as an “innocent victim” of Sukesh’s “maliciously targeted attack.” Her plea further emphasized that the ED itself admitted Sukesh had been provided unrestricted access to mobile phones and other technology by Tihar Jail officials, enabling him to con not only Fernandez but also a slew of other high-profile celebrities. Fernandez also claimed that Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his aide, Pinky Irani, made several attempts to mislead her into believing Sukesh was a successful businessman frequently targeted for political reasons.
Jacqueline’s plea in the Supreme Court
According to the Live Law report, the plea argued that since Jacqueline had been presented as a prosecution witness in the predicate offence, subsequent proceedings against her should not be pursued. “The Petitioner cannot be summoned to suffer trial for an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA in the absence of any admissible evidence to indicate her positive knowledge that the gifts given to her were derived from any criminal activity,” the plea stated. It further contended that the prosecution’s own material showed the actor lacked mens rea, as there was no evidence she was aware of the alleged offence.
The Supreme Court on Monday however, refused to hear the actor’s petition. According to a report by the Hindu, The bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta, saw the appearance of senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi who was representing Jacqueline Fernandez. Seeking reprieve for his client, he defended her, saying she had only received “gifts” from Sukesh Chandrashekhar who was “infatuated by the film star.” Justice Datta however cross-questioned Mr. Rohtagi, asking him, “gifts worth ₹5.7 crore only?” Mr Rohtagi vehemently argued for his client, claiming that she had no idea about the gifts being proceeds of crime. He said, “To be accused of this crime, she should have known that this man was extorting and that he was sending her a part of the crime proceeds.” The court allowed her to file her appeal at a later date but refused to intervene at this stage in the proceedings saying that any observations made by the High Court would not prejudice her legal efforts to seek relief.