Can’t we re-hear ED case against ex-DGP Jaffar Sait, Madras HC asks counsel
Senior counsel T Mohan representing the former DGP objected to re-hear the case by referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court defending his contention that the Court cannot alter its verdict after an order was already dictated in the open court unless an exceptional situation arises
Former DGP Jaffar Sait
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court wondered whether the Court cannot re-hear the case in which an order was dictated in the open Court, but later decided to hear the parties on merits to take a final call.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam raised the query while re-rehearing the plea of former DGP Jaffar Sait seeking to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against him by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on the alleged charges of illegally obtaining housing board plot allotments.
Senior counsel T Mohan representing the former DGP objected to re-hear the case by referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court defending his contention that the Court cannot alter its verdict after an order was already dictated in the open court unless an exceptional situation arises.
However, the bench refused to accept the submission of the senior counsel and asked him to argue the matter on merits. The bench said that on August 21 when the case was listed for hearing a counsel appeared for Jaffar Sait and sought for an adjournment.
It was also submitted on that day that the predicate offence registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption against the petitioner was already quashed. Hence, we opted to quash the ECIR as the predicate offence got quashed, later ordered to re-hear the matter on merits, said the bench.
The bench asked the senior counsel to show the order copy which they had dictated as he objected to arguing the matter on merits as the verdict was already delivered.
The court said that the dictated order was not typed and signed, hence the senior had to put forth his contentions on merits.
Later, the senior counsel advanced his arguments to quash the ECIR registered against his client under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) which mainly relied upon the Vijay Madanlal Choudary vs Union of India case.
The senior counsel also submitted that the ED registered the case based on an anonymous complaint without the proceeds of crime and sought to quash the case.
Special public prosecutor for ED, N Ramesh submitted that on August 21 the matter was heard as claimed by the petitioner’s counsel. He also submitted that the ED hasn’t registered the ECIR based on an anonymous complaint and the case related to predicate offence is still pending against other accused persons.
Hence the ED is entitled to proceed with the case, he added. After hearing both sides submissions the bench reserved the orders without mentioning any date for the next hearing.
