Senthil Balaji Withdraws Revision Plea Against Trial Court's Refusal To Discharge Him From PMLA Proceedings

Balaji's counsel told the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam that since the trial in the PMLA case has already begun and the witness examination has already started, he wished to withdraw the revision petition. The court noted the submission and dismissed the case as withdrawn.

“It is brought to the notice of the court that the charges were framed in 8/8/24 and PW1 examined on 16/8/24 and cross-examination is in progress. The learned counsel would submit that since trial has commenced, they are not inclined to pursue the petition. He has also made an endorsement to this effect. In view of the endorsement and submission, case was dismissed as withdrawn,” the court noted.

Balaji had approached the High Court after the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai which is the Special Court for PMLA Cases refused to discharge him from the calendar case. Balaji had argued before the trial court that the ECIR registered by the ED was frivolous and devoid of merit. He added that the complaint did not reveal the actual facts and the predicate crime against Balaji had no basis for formation of the crime. He pointed out that even if all the statements made during the course of the investigation are read conjointly, there was nothing incriminating against Balaji nor he was directly involved in the alleged crime.

Balaji also accused the ED of trying to create documents against him in order to fix guilt under the PMLA. He thus argued that the evidence submitted by the ED was tainted, manipulated, planted and had no prima facie value to proceed with the PMLA.

The ED had, however, opposed this plea submitting that there was plethora of evidence against Balaji. ED had also argued that the contentions raised by Balaji could not be raised and considered at that stage and deserved to be rejected.

The trial court noted that to discharge a person under Section 227 of the CPC, the court had to be satisfied that there was insufficient facts and evidence in the complaint, that it was not possible to determine the material facts of the case, that the allegation against the accused are imprecise and baseless and that the complainant failed to provide any witnesses. However, in Balaji's case, the court noted that none of these grounds existed.

The court noted that at the time of framing charges, the court didn't have to go through the evidence in depth and only had to be prima facie satisfied of the evidence. Noting that there was material, the court dismissed the petition.

In his revision petition, Balaji had argued that the trial judge had erred in holding that the grounds could not be raised at the stage of framing charges. He pointed out that at the stage of framing the charge, the trial court had to look into the broad possibilities of the case. he had thus sought for a revision of the trial court's order. However, now this petition has been withdrawn.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 337

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director

Case No: Crl RC 1286 of 2024