CHENNAI: A division bench of Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to stay the proceedings of the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the Principal Sessions and Special Court for PMLA Cases against former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji.
“It is too early to stay the proceedings,” the bench consisting of Justices MS Ramesh and Sunder Mohan said, and added that the prayer can be considered at the time when the Principal Sessions Court trial is nearing pronouncement of verdict.
“At the time of judgement, we can see it,” the bench stated, after senior counsels Mukul Rohatgi and S Prabakaran made submissions on the petition seeking a stay on the proceedings in the money laundering case registered under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The bench directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file the counter-affidavit by April 25, 2024 and adjourned the case to the same date.
Senthil Balaji, who was arrested by ED on June 14, 2023 on the charges of laundering proceeds of crime generated through a cash-for-job scam, filed the petition in the High Court challenging the recent order of the Principal Sessions Court dismissing his plea for deferment of trial until the Central Crime Branch of Greater Chennai Police completed the investigation in the case concerning the predicate offence.
The ED had registered the money laundering case based on the case related to predicate offence filed under the IPC by the CCB that is pending before a special court for MP/MLA cases.
Rohatgi said that if the ED trial in the money laundering case moves faster and results in conviction and the trial in the predicate offence case results in acquittal, it would ‘manifest contrary position’ because the ED case is premised on the offences under IPC.
“If Senthil Balaji is convicted in the ED trial and acquitted in the IPC offence, it will result in manifest injustice,” he contended, and noted if he is acquitted in the IPC case, it will lead to ED case ending in his favour.
Rohatgi further said, “If the money laundering case is decided first (ending in conviction) and he is acquitted in the predicate offence case, then it will be like putting the cart before the horse.”
Prabakaran, in his arguments, citing an order of the Telangana High Court said the trial in the money laundering case can be deferred under section 309 (2) of CrPC because the trial in the ED case cannot precede the proceedings of the predicate offence.
