SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

The arguments of N Ramesh, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Directorate of Enforcement; Facts leading to the filing of these 2 impleading petitions by ED; The state police had registered 3 FIRs vide (i) Crime No.441/2015 (ii) Crime No. 298/2017 (iii) Crime No.344/2018 on the allegations of a ‘cash- for job scam. On competition of investigation, the final reports were filed by State Police which was taken cognizance by competent Court in (i) C.C.No. 24/2021 (ii) C.C.No.19/2020 (iii) C.C.No.25/2021. These three cases are pending trial before the learned Spl. Court for MLAs & MPs, Chennai, against Senthil Balaji & others.

by ·

 

The arguments of N Ramesh, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Directorate of Enforcement;

Facts leading to the filing of these 2 impleading petitions by ED;

  1. The state police had registered 3 FIRs vide (i) Crime No.441/2015 (ii) Crime No. 298/2017 (iii) Crime No.344/2018 on the allegations of a ‘cash- for job scam. On competition of investigation, the final reports were filed by State Police which was taken cognizance by competent Court in (i) C.C.No. 24/2021 (ii) C.C.No.19/2020 (iii) C.C.No.25/2021. These three cases are pending trial before the learned Spl. Court for MLAs & MPs, Chennai, against Senthil Balaji & others.

 

 

  1. In one case, the defacto-complainant Mr. Devasayaham filed a Crl OP 15122/22, seeking de-novo investigation C.C. No.24/2021. Similarly, another defacto-complainant, Mr. Sahayarajan, filed a Crl OP 13194/2022 for ‘compounding’ quash of C.C. No. 19 of 2020.  The Hon’ble High Court has granted STAY for the proceedings in C.C.No. 19/2020 & C.C. No. 24/2021.

 

 

  1. The prime requirement for initiation of investigation by ED is the registration of crime, relating to the scheduled offence, by any Law Enforcement Agency. In this case, the state police had already registered 3 FIRs and also filed 3 separate final reports, in respect of offences under the PMLA schedule. Hence, ED has jurisdiction and accordingly registered a case in ECIR/MDSZO/21/2021 against Mr. Senthil Balaji & others. In the investigation, ED summoned Senthil Balaji & 2 others.

 

  1. Challenging summons, Mr. Senthil Balaji & 2 others filed 3 Writ petitions and obtained a “stay order” to the effect that ED’s investigation has to await the finality of the said quashing proceedings in police case vide Crl OP 15122/21 & (ii) Crl OP 13914/2022. This necessitated ED to file impleading petitions in the above 2 Crl OPs.

 

 

  1. The purposes of ED getting impleaded in the above Crl OPs are;

 

  • To place required and correct facts for the just decision of the case;
  • The petitioner in Crl OP 15122/22, Mr. Devasayaham is a retired employee and an agriculturist. He claims to have paid a sum of Rs.2,60,000/ to get a job for his son. But now, the same person is engaging the costliest senior advocates for his litigation. This shows that some big shots are behind him and operating on him. Court has to see through this design. On one hand, the powerful “power minister” is arrayed as an accused and on the other hand, the same state police are prosecuting him. In such a situation, the presence of an investigation agency like ED can be the assistance of this Hon’ble Court.

 

 

  • It was argued by Counsel for Mr. Devasayaham (Crl OP 15122/22) that in the related case, “Dharmaraj Vs Shanmugam”, the Supreme Court has ordered the state police to conduct a “Comprehensive investigation” and that therefore de-novo investigation has to be ordered as prayed for by him. It is not correct. The SC has only observed that “the State ought to have undertaken a comprehensive investigation into the entire scam…” and never ordered for de-novo investigation. There is a vast difference between “comprehensive investigation” and “de-novo investigation”. Had SC intended to order a de-novo investigation, SC would have specifically stated so. Whatever is not stated by SC cannot be interpreted here. De-nono investigation means, starting afresh and erasing everything. The real intention of this petitioner is, in the guise of a ‘de-novo’ investigation, to erase everything. If a de-novo investigation is ordered, nothing will be available afresh as the accused are powerful politicians. Hence de-novo investigation as prayed by petitioner Mr. Devasayaham should not be entertained by this Hon’ble Court.

 

 

  • It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that several accused were left out and to implicate them, a de-novo investigation has to be conducted. It is not so. If sufficient evidence is available, the Trial Court, before which the Case is now pending, can itself add the new persons as accused by invoking section 319 of Cr.P.C.

 

Therefore, the quash petitions Crl.OP 13914/2021 against C.C.No. 19/2020 and Crl OP 15122/2022 against C.C.No.24/2021 are to be dismissed. The two implead petitions filed by ED are to be allowed.

You may also like...