Senthil Balaji Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Stay PMLA Trial In Cash For Jobs Scam

Noting that it was too early to stay the trial, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan refused to grant any interim reliefs on the plea filed by the MLA and directed the Enforcement Directorate to file a counter to the plea by April 25^th.

Balaji, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in June last year has been in custody since then. Though he had approached the court for bail on medical and technical grounds, the trial court, High Court and the Supreme Court refused to grant him bail. Recently, while dismissing his bail on technical grounds, the High Court had directed the trial court to complete the money laundering trial within 3 months considering Balaji's incarceration for over 8 months.

Subsequently, Balaji approached the trial court to defer the trial in the money laundering case. it was argued that the trial of the scheduled offence, which was intricately connected to the money laundering allegations should precede the trial of the money laundering offence as the chronological order of the trials was crucial for a fair and comprehensive understanding of the outcome of the case. It was also argued that a sequential or conjoint trial of the scheduled offence and Money Laundering offence would enable a more efficient presentation of evidence, facilitate a clearer understanding of facts and contribute to the overall fairness of the proceedings.

The trial court noted that there was no bar on the framing of charges and trial and there was no merit to defer the trial. The trial court also observed that Balaji had filed the petition only to protract the proceedings which deserved to be dismissed. Balaji has now approached the High Court seeking a revision of the order of the trial court refusing to defer the trial.

When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Balaji contended that the trial in the money laundering case had to follow the trial in the predicate offence. He added that of Balaji was convicted in the ED trial and subsequently acquitted in the IPC offence, it would lead to manifest injustice. He also argued that deciding the money laundering case before the predicate offence would be like putting the cart before the horse.

Adding to these submissions, Senior Advocate S Prabakaran argued that the money laundering case could be deferred under Section 309(2) CrPC as the same could not precede the trail in a predicate offence.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate S Prabakaran

Counsel for the Respondent: ASG ARL Sundaresan assisted by N Ramesh, Special Prosecutor

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 106

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director

Case No: Crl RC 486 of 2024