SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, A.A. NAKKIRAN, JJ.
Karthik Dasari, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The State by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Crl.O.P. Nos. 5725 to 5727 of 2022
Decided On : 30-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: R. Sankaranaryanan, Addl. Sol. Gen. assisted by S. Sasikumar, Special Public Prosecutor (Enf. Directorate), Amicus Curiae, Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Enforcement Directorate should follow the prescribed procedure under the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 for obtaining certified copies of documents for aiding the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Headnote:

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act - Fair Investigation - 120-B, 465, 467, 471, 420 & 201 IPC and Sections 7,12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - 406, 420 & 506(II) IPC - 406, 420 & 506 (I) IPC - ECIR No.21 of 2022 - Rule 231(3) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 - Rule 210 - Rule 237 - Rule 238

Fact of the Case:

The Enforcement Directorate filed criminal original petitions seeking to call for the records in connection with three criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs for aiding the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Enforcement Directorate should have followed the procedure of conducting inspection under Rule 237 and Rule 238 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, and then filed a fresh third party copy application before the Special Court.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Enforcement Directorate was entitled to obtain certified copies of unmarked documents from the Special Court for aiding the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Enforcement Directorate should have first filed an application under Rule 237 for inspection of the records in the Special Court and then followed the procedure of Rule 238 before filing a fresh third party copy application.

Final Decision: The court set aside the portions of the impugned orders which denied the granting of certified copies of unmarked documents and allowed the Enforcement Directorate to follow the proper procedure for obtaining the required documents.

Judgement Key Points

Response to Legal Query: Cases Related as Direct Party of the Complainant

In the provided judgment (2022 Supreme(Mad) 1396), the underlying criminal cases pending before the Additional Special Court for trial of criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs (Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai) involve multiple victims/de facto complainants as direct parties prosecuting the offenses against the accused (Senthil Balaji and others). These are the "predicate offenses" (scheduled offenses under PMLA) from which the Enforcement Directorate sought documents. The details are as follows:

  • C.C. No. 24 of 2021 (originating from CCB Cr. No. 441/2015)
    Provisions: 120-B, 465, 467, 471, 420 & 201 IPC; Sections 7, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
    Number of victims (direct complainants/parties): 84 [21001442610001] (!)

  • C.C. No. 19 of 2020 (originating from CCB Cr. No. 298/2017)
    Provisions: 406, 420 & 506(II) IPC.
    Number of victims (direct complainants/parties): 21 [21001442610001] (!)

  • C.C. No. 25 of 2021 (originating from CCB Cr. No. 344/2018)
    Provisions: 406, 420 & 506(I) IPC.
    Number of victims (direct complainants/parties): 44 [21001442610001] (!)
    Note: Prosecution in this case was quashed by the High Court in O.P. No. 13374 of 2021 on 30.07.2021 due to amicable settlement between the de facto complainant and accused [21001442610011].

These victims/complainants are the direct parties (as prosecutors/informants) in the listed C.C. Nos., registered by the Central Crime Branch (CCB), Chennai, alleging bribery for transport corporation appointments [21001442610001][21001442610002][21001442610006]. The State (Inspector of Police, CCB) represents them as the nominal respondent in the High Court petitions [legal_document header]. The Enforcement Directorate was a third party seeking records from these cases for PMLA investigation (ECIR No. 21 of 2022) (!) (!) (!) [21001442610003].


JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.O.P. No.5725 of 2022: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in Crl.M.P. No.20053 of 2021 in connection with C.C.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai and set aside the same for the purpose of a fair investigation and direct the said Court, to furnish the remaining unmarked documents in C.C. No.25 of 2021 for aiding the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, by the petitioner.

Crl.O.P. No.5726 of 2022: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in Crl.M.P. No.20055 of 2021 in connection with C.C.No.24 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai and set aside the same for the purpose of a fair investigation and direct the said Judge, to furnish the remaining unmarked documents in C.C. No.24 of 2021 for aiding the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, by the petitioner.

Crl.O.P. No.5727 of 2022: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records in Crl.M.P. No.20054 of 2021 in connection with C.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Special Court for trial of criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai and set aside the same for the purpose of a fair investigation and direct the said Judge, to furnish the remaining unmarked documents in C.C. No.19 of 2020 for aiding the investigation under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, by the petitioner.)

Common Order:

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. In view of commonality of the issue involved, the instant three criminal original petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

2. One Senthil Balaji was the Transport Minister in the AIADMK Government headed by late Selvi J. Jayalalithaa sometime during 2011-2015 and there were lot of complaints against him, in that, it was alleged that he had received huge amounts as bribe from various persons for appointing them as Conductors and Drivers in the Transport Corporations. In connection with these allegations, three FIRs were registered against him which culminated in charge sheets being filed against him and those charge sheets are now pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court (Special Court for trial of criminal cases relating to MPs and MLAs), Chennai, the details of which are as under:

CCB Cr.No.


C.C.No.

Provisions

No.of victims

441/2015

24 of 2021

120-B, 465, 467, 471, 420 & 201 IPC and Sections 7,12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act

84

298/2017

19 of 2020

406, 420 & 506(II) IPC

21

344/2018

25 of 2021

406, 420 & 506 (I) IPC

44

3. Since the charge sheets disclosed the commission of a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, viz. Section 420 IPC, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case in ECIR No.21 of 2022 against Senthil Balaji and others on 29.07.2021 and took up the investigation of the case.

4. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate filed individual third party copy applications in C.C. Nos.24 of 2021, 19 of 2020 and 25 of 2021 before the Special Court, seeking certified copies of certain documents.

5. The Special Court, by three separate orders dated 09.11.2021, passed almost on similar lines, directed the issuance of certified copies of some documents such as final report, complaint and FIR and 161 Cr.P.C. statements, but, refused to grant the certified copies of unmarked documents sought by the Enforcement Directorate, aggrieved by which, the Enforcement Directorate has filed the instant three criminal original petitions invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Heard Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Sasikumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top