Sibal raises concerns about the possibility of self-incrimination -
Khanna J: What you are saying is that they record a statement making the person plead guilty...And then they rely on that statement, and the onus shifts? Is it also not the law that any of the admissions or confessions, the court can always ask for corroborative evidence?
Sibal takes court through Section 50, stressing the distinction between 'inquiry' and 'investigation' -
"Vijay Madanlal Choudhary says that there is no distinction. Therefore, they are not police officers."
Sibal: Section 50 therefore relates to Section 13, which deals with the powers of the director to impose fine.
Sibal: Now, come to Section 50. (reads out)
Section 50 deals with the powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.
Sibal: Kindly look at the definition of financial institutions next...This is Section 2(1)(l)...Will have some bearing on the interpretation... (reads out from the section)
Sibal: Obalapuram...
Khanna J: Section 2(1)(u) is not directly raised...
Sibal: It says scheduled offence. Whether it is proceeds of crime, it first has to be a scheduled offence.
Sibal: See the meaning of money laundering in Section 3, and proceeds of crime in Section 2(1)(u)...
Khanna J: Is Section 2(1)(u) referred to in any of the petitions, directly? Have you raised this issue in your grounds?
Kaul J to both Sibal and SG Mehta -
"I've never permitted in the court...I feel it's a law point both of you are arguing. It shouldn't be a personal issue. Everyone should not be on the touchy edge of everything. Both sides seem extra agitated."
Sibal and SG Mehta exchange words again -
Smiling, Justice Kaul says, "Everyone seems to be on edge today, except the court."
Sibal: There are serious issues. My learned friend is getting a wrong impression of what we are doing here...
SG Mehta (interjects): My problem is I have a correct impression of what they are trying to do...
Kaul J: That's your perspective. He has his perspective. Next.