Today( 13th March): The Madras High Court directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to submit its counter affidavit by April 25 in response to the revision petition filed by former T.N. Minister V. Senthilbalaji challenging the Session Court’s decision not to postpone the trial.
Chennai: Today (13th March): The Madras High Court denied providing an interim stay on the trial proceedings of a money laundering case involving former T.N. Minister V. Senthilbalaji, investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan conveyed to Senior Counsels Mukul Rohatgi and S. Prabakaran that the request for an interim stay could be reviewed once the ED submits its counter to a revision petition filed by the accused challenging the Sessions Court’s decision not to postpone the trial.
The bench directed Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan to ensure that the counter affidavit is filed by April 25. ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh was directed to take notice on behalf of the investigating agency in the criminal revision petition.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court: Transfer of ‘Farmers Protest Case’ to Punjab and Haryana High Court
Mr. Rohatgi argued that
it’s imperative to delay the trial in the money laundering case until the conclusion of the trial related to the alleged acceptance of cash for State Transport Corporation jobs during the accused’s tenure as Transport Minister in former T.N. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s Cabinet. He expressed concerns about the possibility of grave injustice if the accused is first convicted in the case filed by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and subsequently acquitted in the cash-for-jobs scam case pursued by the Chennai Central Crime Branch police under the Indian Penal Code.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Suspends Karnataka State School Board Exams for Grades 5, 8, 9, and 11
“This situation would be akin to placing the cart before the horse… If the petitioner is convicted and incarcerated in the money laundering case but later acquitted in the predicate offence, there’s no reversing the consequences,” he emphasized. Additionally, he noted that invoking the PMLA requires the existence of a predicate offence and laundered proceeds from that crime.
READ PREVIOUS REPORTS ON SENTHIL BALAJI CASE
