Bank Deposits From MLA Salary & Agricultural Income : Senthil Balaji To Supreme Court In ED Case Bail Plea
Amisha Shrivastava
23 July 2024 3:53 AM GMT
It was argued on behalf of former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji before the Supreme Court on Monday (July 22) that the deposit of Rs. 1.34 crores in his bank account from 2013 to 2021 is not for the alleged cash for jobs scam but from his agricultural income as well as his salary as an MLA.
The MLA and former Minister was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (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 yesterday heard the arguments of Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Balaji.
"The complaint does not take into account that this period is not the period of the alleged cash for jobs scam during the period 2017 to 2021. It was the period when he received salary as an MLA aggregating Rs. 68 lakhs, rest of the amount is agricultural income. This is completely overlooked", Rohatgi said.
During the proceedings, Rohatgi contended that the search and seizure effected by the investigation agency, which forms the basis of allegations against him, is tainted and no reliance can be placed on it.
Rohatgi submitted that a Seagate hard disk was produced by the agency before the court in the predicate offence which was not referred to in the search record. What was recovered was an HP hard disk, and not a Seagate Hard disk, he said, adding that the search is tainted.
He added that forensic analysis of a recovered pen drive showed that none of the files found in the pen drive were regarding the alleged proceeds of crime mentioned by the ED in the prosecution complaint.
"There is no file "CSAC.xlsx" and the respondent has relied upon a file "CSAC.xlsx" to contend the petitioner has allegedly received an amount of 67 Crores", Rohatgi contended. File named "CSAC" is not part of the pen drive or the Seagate hard disk, Rohatgi said, arguing that there is a discrepancy in the prosecution's case.
Rohatgi submitted that the charge sheet in the predicate offence and the prosecution complaint in the money laundering case have been filed but the trial has not commenced in either case. He added that while the predicate offence has more than 2000 accused, Balaji is the sole accused in the money laundering case.
Rohatgi said that Balaji is incarcerated for 13 months and even underwent a coronary bypass surgery in jail. This qualifies Balaji for bail as a 'sick and infirm' person, Rohatgi argued. Section 45 of PMLA, which prescribes stringent twin conditions for granting bail contains a proviso under which the special PMLA court can grant bail to a "sick and infirm" accused.
"I am putting my case in 2 or 3 heads. One, I have suffered 13 months (incarceration), that complaint is filed (in money laundering case), that predicate offence is filed, nothing has started in either, and that I have had a heart bypass", Rohatgi summarized.
Rohatgi relied on recent judgments in KA Najeeb and Javed Gulam Shaikh to support his case. "Reformative part of the jurisprudence is now completely forgotten. We are all bothering your lordships with petty cases which should never have come to the Supreme Court", Rohatgi remarked.
The hearing will continue tomorrow at 3PM.
Background
Balaji was a Minister in Tamil Nadu government's transport department between 2011-2016. In the said capacity, he was accused of having orchestrated, along with his personal assistants and brother, the collection of money by promising job opportunities in various positions of the Department. Statedly, 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 the former Minister 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.
The HC rejected Balaji's contention of evidence tampering and observed that the investigation agency had relied upon the documents that were already present in the predicate offense and based on which the final report had been filed, which was never questioned by Balaji.
The court added that the investigating agency had even received certified copies of the documents from the court, which added authenticity.
In response to Balaji's submission that he was no longer a Minister, the court noted that Balaji's continuation as a Minister without portfolio for eight months even after his arrest showed his influence and backing from the ruling party.
The court thus observed that Balaji was still an influential person and there was a possibility of influencing the witnesses, especially considering that Balaji had already attempted to compromise the predicate offense.
Aggrieved by the denial of bail, Balaji approached the Supreme Court.
Earlier, Justice Oka verbally observed that a priority hearing cannot be given to the former Minister merely on the ground that he has been in jail for over 300 days as there have been instances where the accused persons have been incarcerated for years under the PMLA provision and yet are not able to seek immediate relief.
Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 3986/2024
Case Title – V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director
