“My son represented the government..” Supreme Court judge recuses himself from Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea:

Read, Digital Desk : A Supreme Court judge recused himself from hearing Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea challenging the trial court’s decision to frame charges against her in a 200 crore rupees money laundering case on Thursday.

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra of the Supreme Court specified that his son had represented the government in a connected case, hence he couldn’t hear the case. He directed the matter be listed before such a bench on June 25.

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had appeared before the bench for the Enforcement Directorate, the investigating agency in the case.

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said “there is some issue it would go before a different bench. In one of the related cases my son represented the government, list it before such bench which none of us is part of.”

Fernandez challenged the May 30 order of the Patiala House Court here, which had directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to frame charges against her in a case investigated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

On May 30, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Prashant Sharma had stated that a prima facie case was made out against Fernandez, looking at the evidence placed by the ED. He stated there was enough prima facie evidence to indicate that Fernandez accepted expensive gifts from Chandrashekhar, despite having knowledge of his criminal activities.

The court noted that she was involved in a conspiracy with Chandrasekhar to conceal the use of the proceeds of the crime (POC). On June 3 Chandrasekhar, Fernandez among others were formally charged after which the trial commenced.

The actress had previously filed a plea for being granted the status of an approver in the ED’s case but eventually withdrew her plea on April 16 after the agency’s objection. Chandrashekhar and his wife were arrested by Delhi police in September 2021 for their role in the fraud case and are currently under judicial custody.

Comments are closed.