HC asks surgeon to appear for inquiry
28/08/2019, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT,CHENNAI
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed Indian born British robotic surgeon M. Senthil Nathan, 60, to appear for inquiry before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials in connection with the 2G spectrum case from Thursday and prove his bona fides by cooperating with the investigation.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh passed the interim order after senior counsel Sonia Mathur and Special Public Prosecutor G. Hema accused the surgeon of not having responded to several summonses issued for an inquiry.
He budged and appeared for inquiry only after issuance of a Look Out Circular, they claimed.
Stating that the investigation agency, at the present stage, was not in a position to state whether he was being inquired as an accused or just a witness in the 2G spectrum case, the counsel said he was prevented from flying back to London only because the inquiry with him had not yet concluded.
On the other hand, senior counsel Satish Parasaran, representing the surgeon, said, his client had already been inquired for more than 40 hours and the investigators had full access to his mobile phones and e-mail accounts.
He also questioned the logic behind issuance of a LOC.
28/08/2019, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT,CHENNAI
The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed Indian born British robotic surgeon M. Senthil Nathan, 60, to appear for inquiry before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials in connection with the 2G spectrum case from Thursday and prove his bona fides by cooperating with the investigation.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh passed the interim order after senior counsel Sonia Mathur and Special Public Prosecutor G. Hema accused the surgeon of not having responded to several summonses issued for an inquiry.
He budged and appeared for inquiry only after issuance of a Look Out Circular, they claimed.
Stating that the investigation agency, at the present stage, was not in a position to state whether he was being inquired as an accused or just a witness in the 2G spectrum case, the counsel said he was prevented from flying back to London only because the inquiry with him had not yet concluded.
On the other hand, senior counsel Satish Parasaran, representing the surgeon, said, his client had already been inquired for more than 40 hours and the investigators had full access to his mobile phones and e-mail accounts.
He also questioned the logic behind issuance of a LOC.
No comments:
Post a Comment