Senthil Balaji's Bail Plea | Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.34 Crores Not From MLA Salary & Agricultural Income: ED To Supreme Court
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Monday (August 5) submitted before the Supreme Court that the cash deposit of Rs. 1.34 Crores in the bank account of former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji have no connection with his salary as MLA or his agricultural income.“His case was that out of this 1.34 Crores, 68 lakhs is my salary as an MLA. It is completely incorrect as he is receiving...
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Monday (August 5) submitted before the Supreme Court that the cash deposit of Rs. 1.34 Crores in the bank account of former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji have no connection with his salary as MLA or his agricultural income.
“His case was that out of this 1.34 Crores, 68 lakhs is my salary as an MLA. It is completely incorrect as he is receiving salary directly as RTGS in his bank account so this 68 lakhs has absolutely no nexus with salary. There is no cash salary as an MLA”, Advocate Zoheb Hossain for ED said.
Hossain submitted that there was a discrepancy in Balaji's declared agricultural income and the actual deposits, stating, “The other part of his justification was all of this is my agricultural income. Now there is completely discrepancy from what he has disclosed in election affidavit, and what he now claims is his agricultural income.”
The MLA and former Minister was arrested by the ED in June last year in a cash-for-jobs money laundering case. He has challenged a Madras High Court order denying him bail in a money laundering case over the cash-for-jobs allegations.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih heard arguments by Advocate Hossain for the ED today.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Balaji has argued that the deposits were of Balaji's MLA salary and agricultural income. He has also said that the incriminating file mentioned in the prosecution complaint against Balaji was not present in the hard disk and pen drive seized from his house. The Supreme Court, in the last hearing, had asked the ED to show that the incriminating file was found in the pen drive seized from Balaji's house.
Courtroom exchange
During the proceedings today, Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, began by stating he was ready with the answer but requested the matter be heard the next day as another court was hearing a part-heard bail matter immediately after lunch.
Justice Oka responded, “We don't appreciate this. That some other court is hearing some matter in the afternoon therefore you are seeking time…As if our court has no importance.” Hossain clarified, “That is not the impression I wanted to convey.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi opposed the request for adjournment, stating that the matter had been adjourned eight times already.
Justice Oka stated that the bench would hear the matter until 2 PM as he had administrative work thereafter, and they would keep the case at the end of the list.
When the matter resumed, Justice Oka inquired where the file named CSAC was found. Hossain began by clarifying that the CSAC file is not the only incrimination material against Balaji.
Hossain explained that the file "CSAC" that is mentioned in the prosecution complaint is the same file “CSAC.xlsx” found in the pen drive as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, and noted that ".xlsx" was merely an extension for the excel.
"They say this is a different file because after 'CSAC' there is '.xlsx'. '.xlsx' is nothing but an extension. It was found in the pen drive. My lord may be put it to anyone who has a basic technological…", Hossain submitted. He added that ED obtained the document from the trial court, and showed the bench the seal of the court.
Hossain then showed the printout of the sheet that was found in the pen drive and noted that several other incriminating sheets were also found. He pointed out a table in the sheet mentioning designations like AE (Assistant Minister), CR (Conductor), JE (Junior Engineering), JTM (Junior Tradesman) etc. indicating that each of these posts had been sold. The total comes to around Rs. 67.74 Crores, he said.
Hossain further refuted Balaji's defence before the High Court that he was not on the recruitment board. “I will show incriminating material where regular emails are sent to the concerned minister", he submitted.
Hossain also addressed the issue of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 1.34 Crores in Balaji's bank account.
Justice Oka, inquiring about the salary of MLAs in Tamil Nadu, in a lighter vein asked, "Is the salary of an MLA far better than judges?" Hossain replied that the salary is about Rs. 12 lakhs per annum, keeping perks aside.
As per the election affidavit, the agricultural income in 2015-16 is Rs. 3.19 lakhs, in Rs. 2016-17 is 3.715 lakhs, and in 2017-18 is Rs. 4.136 lakhs, Hossain submitted. Balaji has claimed that of the Rs. 1.34 Crores, Rs. 68 Lakhs is his MLA salary, and the rest is his agricultural income.
He explained that the cash deposit of Rs. 1.34 Crores spanned from 2013 to 2022, with significant spikes during the scam period. He noted that the bank deposit challans contained no details, with large amounts deposited without PAN, address, or other identifying information.
The bench has kept the matter tomorrow at 3 PM for further arguments.
Background
Balaji was a Minister in the Tamil Nadu government's transport department between 2011-2016. In this capacity, he was accused of orchestrating, along with his personal assistants and brother, the collection of money by promising job opportunities in various positions of the Department. Several complaints were filed against the accused by candidates who paid money but could not secure employment.
Based on the above allegations, the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR and arrested Balaji in June 2023. When Balaji approached the Madras High Court for bail, relief was denied for lack of merits. However, considering that Balaji had been incarcerated for more than 8 months, the High Court directed the Special Court to complete the trial within 3 months.
Aggrieved by the denial of bail, Balaji approached the Supreme Court.
Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 3986/2024
Case Title – V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director