Former union minister P Chidambaram has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday in the money laundering case relating to INX Media. The ED sleuths arrived in Tihar Jail to interrogate the senior congress leader on the orders of the CBI court on Tuesday.
The 74-year-old former finance minister's wife and son Kirti Chidambaram were also present in the jail. Chidambaram has been in judicial custody since August 21, when he was arrested for his involvement in the alleged irregularities in granting of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval to INX Media during his term as Finance minister.
A Delhi court on Tuesday allowed the Enforcement Directorate to interrogate former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and arrest him, if deemed necessary, in the money laundering case relating to INX Media.
Special CBI Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar passed the order while dealing with the application seeking permission to arrest the former Finance Minister filed by the Enforcement Directorate
The court ruled, "Application for the arrest of accused is being treated as an application for interrogation in the present case and is being allowed accordingly."
The court also turned down the application filed by Chidambaram challenging the order of the court by which the court had issued a production warrant against him.
Chidambaram in his plea had stated that the production warrant issued on Friday for seeking his production for purposes of arrest and remand for investigation is "illegal and contrary to the rules laid down by the Delhi High Court".
Turning down the said application, the court said, "The prayers in this application for recall or cancellation of the production warrant issued by this court cannot be allowed for two reasons; firstly, the production warrant was issued by this court is the jurisdiction court of the case in which he was in custody and secondly, under the Criminal Procedure Code the courts exercising criminal jurisdiction have no power to recall any order passed by it.."
The court further said that the remedy against the said order available with the accused was to challenge it in a superior court.
(With inputs from agency)
