NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside Madras HCs October 31, 2022 ruling of directing a fresh probe into cash for a job scam involving irregularities in the appointment of State Transport Corporation in Tamil Nadu.
A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian also said that the IO can proceed further with the investigation.
“Appeals of de novo investigation (fresh investigation) are allowed. The directions issued for de novo investigation are set aside,” the bench said while pronouncing the verdict.
The top court also set aside Madras HCs September 1, 2022 order of quashing the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to Tamil Nadu Electricity V Senthilbalaji and others under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
Justice V Sivagnanam on October 31 while directing for conducting a fresh inquiry into two complaints regarding fraud had observed that there were irregularities in the investigation conducted by the probe agency as it had failed to include certain crucial aspects. HC had also granted special court for cases against MP/MLAs liberty to add/alter charges in case of any reluctance on the part of the State/Investigating Officer.
The accused in the scam are current Tamil Nadu electricity Minister Thiru Senthil Balaji along with a number of public servants and bribe givers.
Senthil Balaji, who was the transport minister from 2011 to 2015 in the previous AIADMK regime, was accused of embezzling money by claiming to provide employment in the transport sector. While the special court hearing the cases against MPs and MLAs, Shanmugam, one of the accused, filed a petition in the Madras High Court.
Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram alleged that the Directorate of Enforcement was conducting ‘fishing’ enquiries to implicate people in money laundering cases. It was also senior counsel’s contention that the ED routinely conducted investigations into alleged money laundering charges without the necessary jurisdictional fact of the existence of identified property or ill-gotten gains in the hands of the accused.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had argued that that the application of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the directorate’s modus operandi were not only against all ‘canons of justice’, but also was violative of the principles of federalism.