CHENNAI: The Madras HC on Tuesday reserved the orders on the petition filed by former DGP Jaffar Sait praying for quashing the money-laundering case registered against him by the ED over the alleged illegal allotment of a plot of Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
The matter was taken up for ‘re-hearing’ by a division bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam as it “found something” to be heard again after allowing the petition to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on August 23 on the ground of quashing of the predicate offence FIR.
The court witnessed heated arguments as senior counsel T Mohan, appearing for the retired IPS officer, questioned the rationale behind re-hearing the matter.
“Once an order is dictated in the open court and uploaded in the HC website, which showed the petition was ‘allowed’, it cannot be reversed. The open court order is as much significant as an order typed and duly signed by the judges,” he said.
Maintaining that the proceedings for money laundering do not exist when the FIR for predicate offence case is quashed, the counsel questioned the judges, “What impels you to rehear?”
Looking annoyed over his repeated and pointed query, the bench explained that it had dictated the order in open court allowing the petition as the respondent, the ED, conceded the predicate offence case against the petitioner (Sait) was quashed. However, the open court order was not final as it was neither typed nor uploaded in the website.
The judges said they thought it necessary to re-hear since they found something that has to be re-heard. “Are we not entitled to make corrections, re-hear the matter or recall the order when we find some mistakes?,” the bench asked, adding ultimately, it is to render justice; court is well within its powers to rehear the matter.
Referring to the quashing of the order of attachment of property of Sait’s wife by the PMLA tribunal, the counsel noted that as a sequitur, if this quashing results in her property not being proceeds of crime, there shall be termination of the proceedings against Sait also.
Referring to the bench’s earlier comments that money-laundering charges cannot be allowed to be washed because of quashing of predicate offence case, Mohan said the Supreme Court’s order in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case “cannot be rewritten” by the high court.
Special Public Prosecutor N Ramesh, appearing for the ED, submitted that neither the arguments were advanced nor the court made any conclusions on the matter.
Denying the charges of Mohan that ED had registered the case only based on some pseudonymous letters, the Special PP said the ECIR was registered on the basis of the FIR and the charge sheet in the predicate offence and not on anonymous calls.
