Minister Senthilbalaji’s plea to defer trial in money laundering case dismissed
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the order of the principal sessions court in Chennai, as the minister withdrew his case.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court dismissed minister Senthilbalaji’s plea to quash the lower court order dismissing his petition to defer the trial in the money laundering case.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the order of the principal sessions court in Chennai, as the minister withdrew his case.
The special public prosecutor of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), N Ramesh, submitted that as the special court for hearing the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) commenced the examination of witnesses and has completed the examination of four witnesses already, there is no point in sustaining the revision petition. After getting instruction, the counsel for Senthilbalaji withdrew the petition as it became infructuous.
In 2015, over 20 persons filed a complaint in the Central Crime Branch (CCB) against Senthilbalaji and his brother Ashok Kumar for receiving money but not providing any appointment in the transport department as promised.
The investigation agency filed the chargesheet after investigating the allegation that Senthilbalaji promised government jobs in the transport department for the exchange of cash as a bribe between 2014 and 2015 when he was the transport minister in the AIADMK government.
Based on the charge sheet the ED registered a money laundering case against Senthilbalaji and he was arrested on June 14, 2023, from his residence in Chennai.
Senthilbalaji filed a petition to defer the trial in the money laundering case as the trial in the scheduled offence case registered by the CCB is pending before the special court.
However, on February 15, the then principal sessions court judge, S Alli dismissed Senthilbalaji’s plea by holding that there was no bar from framing charges against the minister in the money laundering case.