ED opposed the plea of the director of M3m Group in court

The Maintenance Directorate (ED) transferred today before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, against the plea of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Roop Bansal, director of M3M Group and the Fir which was filed in terms of section 120-B of IPC that the Punjab and Haryana High Court could not make the base of the Petitioner. The Advocate of the Ed, Zoheb Hussain, appears before the Bank of Justice Manari Nehru Kaul, and the senior panel advocate of India, Lokesh Narang, argued that the current petition was submitted to claim the FIR on the basis that permission was not taken before the appropriate government of the corruption. But this petition can be raised by Bansal because he was a private person, not a civil servant. The ED argued that even if it was assumed that a civil servant could not be prosecuted without permission, that would not mean that the case against private persons would assist the alleged offenses or under section 120-B of the IPC due to the offense of criminal conspiracy under the PC Act. It is alleged that Bansal conspired with a judge to get benefits. His position in this case has always been that approval is necessary before action against a judge. During the last hearing, senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued, “to call him a judge and to say that because the Supreme Court approved the Supreme Court, it has nothing to do with compulsory statutory prosecution sanctions.” He further said: “In this action, there is a decision of a special judge against corruption -PMLA judge, Panchkula -that it is said that no matter of M3m group was pending before the judge and until April 17, 2023, which is an appropriate cut -off date, there is no case, but in his post I am not the accused of the PML.” Share this story -tags