The Madras High Court has declined to halt the legal process initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against MLA and former Tamil Nadu Minister, Senthil Balaji, pertaining to a cash-for-job scam case.

Noting that it was too early to stay the trial, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan refused to grant any interim reliefs on the plea filed by the MLA and directed the Enforcement Directorate to file a counter to the plea by April 25th.

Balaji, who was apprehended by the Enforcement Directorate in June of the previous year, has remained in custody ever since. Despite seeking bail from the court on medical and technical grounds, both the trial court and higher courts, including the High Court and the Supreme Court, have consistently denied his bail requests. Notably, the High Court recently dismissed his bail plea on technical grounds and instructed the trial court to conclude the money laundering trial within three months, taking into account Balaji's prolonged detention exceeding eight months.

Following this, Balaji filed a request with the trial court to postpone the proceedings in the money laundering case. The argument put forth was that the trial for the scheduled offence, which was closely intertwined with the money laundering accusations, should take precedence over the trial for the money laundering offence. It was emphasized that maintaining the chronological order of the trials was essential for ensuring a fair and thorough comprehension of the case's outcome.

Additionally, it was contended that conducting a sequential or concurrent trial of both the scheduled offence and the money laundering offence would streamline the presentation of evidence, enhance the clarity of facts, and enhance the overall fairness of the legal proceedings.

The trial court noted that there was no bar on the framing of charges and trial and there was no merit to defer the trial. The trial court also observed that Balaji had filed the petition only to protract the proceedings which deserved to be dismissed. Balaji has now approached the High Court seeking a revision of the order of the trial court refusing to defer the trial.

During Wednesday's proceedings, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Balaji, argued that the trial for the money laundering case should proceed only after the trial for the predicate offence. He highlighted the potential for manifest injustice if Balaji were convicted in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) trial but later acquitted in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) offence. Rohatgi further contended that prioritizing the adjudication of the money laundering case before the predicate offence would be equivalent to putting the cart before the horse.

In addition to these arguments, Senior Advocate S Prabakaran further contended that the money laundering case could be deferred under Section 309(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), as it cannot precede the trial in a predicate offence.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate S Prabakaran

Counsel for the Respondent: ASG ARL Sundaresan assisted by N Ramesh, Special Prosecutor

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Deputy Director

Case No: Crl RC 486 of 2024