2G Case: Atmaram Nadkarni submits before Delhi High Court that ” Whatever isn’t a criminal offence, can’t be made made an offence”.

    The Delhi High Court continued hearing the submissions on the purpose of grant of “leave to appeal” within the pleas against acquittal of all accused within the 2G case.
    A Bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi perceived the urgings submitted by Senior Advocates Atmaram Nadkarni, N. Hariharan and Advocate Vijay Aggarwal.

    Nadkarni inaugurated his suggestions by stating that Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been amended and substituted with another Section. Consequently, by an Order dated 21.12.2017, the accused had been acquitted and thus the re was no relation between the prosecutor and the accused.

    “In July 2018, the Section is amended. This becomes relevant because though I’m not a public servant, I have been charged with conspiracy. The CBI started the investigation in January 2020, but they haven’t mentioned the amendment”, submitted Nadkarni.

    He then went on to ask two maxims of legal code – “Whatever isn’t a criminal offence , can’t be made an offence” and “A person can’t be touched if that’s not a criminal offense thereon date”.

    Nadkarni then submitted that there have been no pending proceedings and therefore the only pending thing was the leave to appeal, and an application to go away to appeal didn’t come under pending proceedings.

    “My prayer is that a) this very point is pending before the Division Bench. Therefore, the matter should be mentioned the DB. B) The validity of the amendment is pending before the Supreme Court. c) For arguendo purposes, my submissions would get on merits of the Application”.

    Nadkarni then argued that, on account of the very fact that there are similar matters pending before the DB, and therefore, the moment matter should be stayed till the DB doesn’t hear the matter.

    With reference to the Amendment Act, Nadkarni submitted, “There is not any Repeal and Saving Clause. you’ll note that the intention of the Legislature is clear from the provisions of the Act. that they had in their wisdom chosen to not provide for something that they typically provide in others. it isn’t like they weren’t aware. They were conscious of the pending proceedings and prosecutions”.

    Nadkarni mentioned Section 6 of the overall Clauses Act to buttress his submission.Senior Advocate N. Hariharan told the Court that he would be adopting the argument of Nadkarni. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal also made his tenders post which the Court decided that the matter would be heard tomorrow.