Chandigarh. Senior Indian Revenue Service officer Amit Kumar Singhal and his spouse Anupama Singla have opposed a request for day-to-day hearing in an ongoing corruption case before a special court in Chandigarh. The defence has argued that fast-tracking the trial at this stage would be premature and could affect their right to adequate preparation and fair adjudication.
Defence Flags Incomplete Records and Preparation Concerns
During arguments, the defence counsel submitted that several crucial documents relied upon in the case have not been fully provided. It was argued that without complete access to the record, the accused would not be able to examine the material properly or prepare an effective defence.
FCRF Academy Launches Premier Anti-Money Laundering Certification Program
The defence also maintained that procedural requirements under the applicable criminal framework had not been fully complied with, particularly regarding disclosure of evidence. It argued that an expedited trial before completion of mandatory procedural steps could cause prejudice to the accused.
Case Linked to Bribery Trap and Franchise Dispute
The matter relates to a bribery trap case in which Singhal was earlier arrested along with his associate Harsh Kotak over allegations of illegal gratification linked to a business dispute involving a pizza franchise operation.
The dispute is connected to franchise arrangements associated with La Pino’z Pizza outlets. According to the case record, complainant Sanam Kapoor alleged irregular conduct, breach of agreed terms and misuse of influence by entities linked to the accused after franchise-related agreements turned contentious and were terminated.
Court to Decide Pace of Trial Proceedings
Investigative findings cited in the matter indicate that assets worth several crores of rupees were allegedly found disproportionate to the known sources of income of the accused couple. Searches reportedly led to the recovery of cash, gold and property-related documents linked to Delhi, Mumbai and Punjab, along with details of multiple bank accounts and long-term financial transactions.
The defence argued that the accused are in judicial custody, limiting regular communication with legal counsel. It also questioned the need for exceptional urgency, saying no higher judicial directive mandates a day-to-day hearing in the case.
The court is now expected to decide whether the trial should proceed on an accelerated schedule or follow standard procedural timelines. The outcome will determine the pace of proceedings in a case where the prosecution’s push for urgency is being weighed against the accused’s demand for full procedural safeguards.
