Madras High Court Extends Interim Stay On ED Probe Against Tamil Nadu Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan
Observing that substantial legal issues have been raised in the matter, the Madras High Court recently extended the interim stay on the Enforcement Directorate probe against Tamil Nadu Fisheries Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan till further orders.The division bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that one of the judges (J. Prakash) is retiring shortly and it will not...
Observing that substantial legal issues have been raised in the matter, the Madras High Court recently extended the interim stay on the Enforcement Directorate probe against Tamil Nadu Fisheries Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan till further orders.
The division bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that one of the judges (J. Prakash) is retiring shortly and it will not be able to take up the case for final disposal as Additional Solicitor General has to be heard in detail on all the legal issues raised by the petitioner's counsel in the plea seeking quashing of the ED proceedings.
"That apart, the interim order of stay that has been granted by the Apex Court expires on 19.12.2022 and since we are satisfied that the petitioner has raised substantial legal issues which require a thorough consideration and determination and that the Enforcement Directorate has also provisionally attached some of the properties of the petitioner, we are inclined to continue the interim order of stay that was granted by this court earlier," said the court.
The minister had approached the court in June this year seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against him on the basis of a disproportionate assets case probed by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) in respect of the period from May 2001 and May 2006.
While the high court on June 29 had stayed the ED proceedings, the order was vacated on August 04. However, the Supreme Court by an order dated October 19 revived the earlier order of interim stay and further directed the high court to dispose of the case on merits as expeditiously as possible.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, representing the petitioner, has argued that while he is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC for possessing a sum of Rs.2,07,96,384.04 paise for the check period from 14.05.2001 to 31.03.2006 disproportionate to his known sources of income, the PC Act provision was included as a scheduled offence in the PMLA only with effect from 01.06.2009.
"Even if it were to be held that the same could be retrospectively applied by relying upon para 270 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein, it was held that the same should be applied on a case to case basis, the offence u/s 13(1)(e) of the PC Act would not by itself be capable of generating the proceeds of crime," Aggarwal contended.
It was also submitted that the offence under Section 13 would get attracted only when a person fails to explain the alleged excess of assets and that the lack of explanation to account for the assets in the hands of the accused person by itself will not result in generation of crime proceeds.
Aggarwal has also contended that though the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary held that retrospective application should be decided on a case-to-case basis, the issue has been raised as a ground for review.
"The issue of retrospectively is an issue which is directly involved in the present case and hence, the final judgment in the review petition would have bearing in this case too," he told the court.
Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The Directorate of Enforcement and another