Special Judge Santosh Snehi Mann said there was "prima facie" enough evidence against the accused persons and directed them to appear before the court on March 22.
The Enforcement Directorate had chargesheeted 83-year-old Singh, accusing him of projecting around Rs 7 crore "proceeds of crime" as agricultural income in connivance with his wife and others and invested them in purchasing LIC policies.
Besides Singh and his 62-year-old wife Pratibha Singh, the court summoned Universal Apple Associate owner Chunni Lal Chauhan and two other co-accused, Prem Raj and Lawan Kumar Roach.
All six have been charge sheeted under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Chauhan, arrested on July 9, 2016 by the ED under relevant provisions of the PMLA, was granted bail on January 2 in the case.
In the charge sheet against Virbhadra Singh, filed through Special Public Prosecutor N K Matta, the ED said, "The proceeds of crime acquired by Virbhadra Singh were projected as agricultural income with the help of Anand Chauhan, LIC agent and Chunni Lal Chauhan and were invested into insurance policies purchased in the name of Singh and his family members and a major part of it, after criss-crossing through various bank accounts found way into acquisition of immovable property."
In a separate case filed by the CBI in connection with the matter, Singh, his wife and Anand Chauhan were chargesheeted along with others.
The couple, who have not been arrested so far, and the other accused are facing trial in the CBI case.
The other accused in the CBI case are Chunni Lal Chauhan, stamp paper vendor Joginder Singh Ghalta, managing director of Tarani Infrastructure Vakamulla Chandrasekhar, and co-accused Lawan Kumar Roach, Prem Raj and Ram Prakash Bhatia.
The matter was transferred by the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court which, on April 6, 2016, asked the CBI not to arrest Singh and directed him to join the probe.
On November 5 last year, the apex court transferred Virbhadra Singh's plea from the Himachal Pradesh High Court to the Delhi High Court, saying it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but "simply" transferring the petition "in the interest of justice and to save the institution (judiciary) from any embarrassment".
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
