New Delhi [India], August 6 (ANI): The Enforcement Directorate (ED), while opposing a plea of alleged middleman Christian Michel James seeking release in the VVIP chopper deal case, stated that besides other offences, his extradition was sought for trial in the Money laundering case also.

The ED filed a reply on Tuesday opposing the plea pending before the court of Special Judge Sanjay Jindal at Rouse Avenue court. The ED said that the plea is 'misleading' and 'devoid of any merits.' It deserves to be dismissed.

It is also stated that Article 17 of the 'Extradition Treaty' with the UAE not only permits trial for offences in respect of which extradition of an accused person is sought, but also for the offences connected.

The reply of ED also mentioned that the reading of the judgement of September 2, 2018, passed by the Dubai Supreme Court, would show that besides other offences, Michele's extradition was also sought in respect of the offence of money laundering.

The agency also stated that James was arrested in the money laundering case on December 22, 2018. The period of maximum punishment of 7 years has not expired yet. In this scenario, the provision of section 436A providing a release does not apply to the accused.

On Monday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had argued that Christian Michel James cannot be and should not be released without pleading guilty after framing of charges, he is an accused in.

British National James seeking release from custody on the ground that he has spent a period in custody equivalent to a maximum punishment of 7 years.

He is on bail in both the CBI and ED's Money laundering case, but still in custody due to non-filing of bail bond. He has to surrender his passport to the court, which has already expired.

James was extradited to India on December 4, 2018 and was arrested by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case.

Special CBI Judge Sanjay Jindal heard the arguments on the application moved by Christian Michel James.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Senior Advocate DP Singh, along with Manu Mishra, had argued that James shouldn't be granted release from jail just because he has undergone a period of 7 years in custody.

It was further argued by the CBI's counsel that framing of charges has to take place. In case, even if, charges under section 467 (Forgery) IPC, not framed against him, he cannot be released without pleading guilty. Section 476 IPC has maximum punishment upto life imprisonment.

'Only then can my lords say that his sentence is now over. Otherwise, he has to approach a constitutional court,' the CBI counsel had submitted.

On the other hand, advocate Aljo K Joseph, counsel for the accused, had argued that he was entitled to be released under the provisions of Section 436A of the CrPC.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) NK Matta, who appeared for the ED. He submitted that the condition of extradition doesn't apply to the case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as he was arrested subsequently to the arrest by the CBI.

SPP Matta also submitted that remission can be considered only after punishment. The seven years of punishment have not been completed in the ED's case.

The court will continue to hear submissions on Wednesday also. (ANI)