The Court observed that no money or property is tainted unless it is derived from illicit sources or activities. In this regard, the judge referred to an example:
“…a criminal lawyer defending an accused in a case for kidnapping for ransom, receives his fee from the accused which he (accused) had derived in committing the offence, is tainted money so long it is in his possession, but when the same money is received by the lawyer as his fees, it is no longer tainted because any of the activities relatable to the schedule offence cannot be attributed to the lawyer defending him before the court of law.”
The Court considered the facts that Chidambaram had received the money in her bank account after deducting tax at source (TDS), and that she received money not exceeding ₹10 lakh at a time.
“Whether she is liable for service tax or not is a matter to be investigated into by other agency, and not by the ED. Whether issuance of no tax invoice or bill is violation of any law relating service tax is a matter to be investigated into by other authority or agency,” the judge added.
On going through the submissions and evidence, the Court held,
“A lawyer, many times, send his/her client(s) to other lawyer or friends or officers or professionals for further assistance…There is nothing wrong in it. In the present case, Mrs. Chidambaram guided his client to take assistance of other professionals who were having better skill and knowledge to provide him /her (Mr. Sudipta Sen or his companies or Mnoranjana Sinh) proper advice. When a lawyer is invited to any place as a part of professional relationship, the clients pay the fees of air ticket, hotel charges, etc., which is also not unusual to sense anything foul.”
Source: Barandbench
