(REOPENS LGM 1)

During the arguments in court, Nalini’s counselVijayanarayan alleged that the prosecution had "gone beyondits line" and dubbed it as "persecution" and "an attempt forpolitical reasons" to harass (her). He claimed that even the CBI chargesheet had not mentionedanything about the amount received by Nalini as professionalfee as being proceeds of the alleged crime (Saradha scam). The other counsels (in the TV channel deal) had not beensummoned, he submitted, adding that the fee was received whenthe scam was yet to come to light. "An attempt has been made for political reasons and unlessthe court interferes, anything can happen," he submitted. Explaining her appearance before the Company Law Board andthe Delhi High Court in the matter related to a dispute overthe TV channel purchase deal, Nalini’s counsel said, accordingto an agreement between Manoranjana and Sudipto Sen, theBengal Media Pvt. Ltd, run by Sen, had committed toprofessionally and legally assist in her ongoing litigations. Accordingly, Sen, through his real estate company SaradhaRealty India Limited, paid the "professional fee" of about Rsone crore to Nalini. But, the CBI later registered a case against Sen forfailure to return deposits made in his chit funds. It was inthis connection, the professional fee paid to Nalini from oneof Sen’s companies was inquired by the CBI. The counsel also said Nalini had fully explained to theCBI about the receipt of the professional fee. It was in this connection, the ED had issued foursummonses for her appearance, which was challenged by her. He further submitted that Nalini had also sent herauthorised representative to the ED in response to earliersummonses and the questionnaire was fully answered and allthe documents were submitted to the agency. Stating that the same questionnaire was again issued bythe ED, he said in the fourth and last summons, the words"authorised representative" were struck off. Assistant Solicitor General G Rajagopalan, appearing onbehalf of the ED, submitted that the matter was only in thestage of summons. Mere summoning itself could not be assumedas the person had been made an accused. He also said the ED had summoned the petitioner as itmight not have been satisfied with the answers furnished bythe "authorised" person. "It is only in the stage of collecting evidence and theofficer who issues summons does not know about the person andpersonalities," he said, apparently rejecting the charge of"political reasons". PTI CORR VSRC