Senthil Balaji's Bail Plea : Supreme Court Seeks Clarification From ED On Predicate Offences
The Supreme Court today (August 14) sought clarification from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on whether it intends to rely on all three predicate offences in the money laundering case against Senthil Balaji or exclude one of the cases that involves more than a thousand accused.The predicate offences are registered against Balaji under section 420 (cheating) and other relevant sections of...
The Supreme Court today (August 14) sought clarification from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on whether it intends to rely on all three predicate offences in the money laundering case against Senthil Balaji or exclude one of the cases that involves more than a thousand accused.
The predicate offences are registered against Balaji under section 420 (cheating) and other relevant sections of the IPC as well as sections 7 (public servant taking bribe), 12 (abetment) and 13 (misconduct of public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih had on Monday reserved judgment in Balaji's bail plea. However, the Court listed the matter today to seek the clarification.
“We have kept it for this purpose - whether you are going to rely upon all three predicate offences, or whether you want to exclude the offence where there are more than a thousand accused”, the Court said.
The Court had last week asked whether the trial under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) could proceed without the trial of the predicate offence. In response, advocate Zoheb Hossain for the ED submitted on Monday that of the three predicate offences against Balaji, only one has more than over two thousand accused. Thus, he argued that even if the trial in that specific case does not commence, the PMLA trial could still proceed based on the other two predicate offences.
Thereafter, the bench questioned whether the ED was relying on all three predicate offences or only some. The matter was listed today as the judges wanted a clarification on this issue.
During the hearing today, the Advocate representing the ED requested time to obtain instructions, as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was engaged in another court. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Balaji, quipped that he had no objection if the ED chose to exclude all three predicate offences instead of just one. Following this exchange, the court placed the matter at the end of the today's list.
When the matter was called again, the Court was informed that the Solicitor General was still held up in another matter. As a result, the Court decided to list the matter on top of the list on Tuesday, August 20, 2024 for the Solicitor General's clarification.
Background
Senthil Balaji, who served as the Tamil Nadu Transport Minister between 2011 and 2016, is accused of orchestrating a cash-for-jobs scam. It is alleged that he, along with his personal assistants and brother, collected money from individuals by promising them jobs in various positions within the department. Multiple complaints were lodged by candidates who claimed they paid money but did not receive the promised employment.
In June 2023, Balaji was arrested by the ED in connection with a money laundering case related to these allegations. He subsequently challenged a Madras High Court order denying him bail. The High Court had rejected his bail plea, citing the severity of the charges and the potential for witness tampering. Thus, he filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 3986/2024
Case Title – V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director