SG Tushar Mehta said that just because the ED officers were not police officers did not mean that they had no power to investigate.
The Principal Sessions Court extended the judicial remand of Senthil Balaji till 26 July. (Wikimedia Commons)
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday, 12 July, told the Madras High Court that it had the power to arrest and take custody of Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Arguing on the habeas corpus petition filed by Megala, wife of Senthil Balaji, Solicitor-General of India Tushar Mehta made his submission to this effect before Justice CV Karthikeyan, who was named as a third judge to hear the plea by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
Arguing that the ED had to exercise its statutory duty, Mehta said that once the ED has sufficient material relating to the proceeds of crime, it can arrest a person, attach the individual’s properties, and even confiscate them.
He also pointed out that the investigation was contemplated after the filing of the complaint and also after the arrest.
Merely because the ED officers were not police officers did not mean that they had no power to investigate, he said.
He added, “In the money-laundering case, there was only one offence and the punishment was seven years of rigorous punishment. Besides, it was a non-bailable offence. Therefore, the ED has no power to release an accused. He can be released only by a court. So, the ED officers cannot be treated as station officers.”
Citing a Supreme Court judgement, Mehta said that it was the moral duty of the ED to investigate or interrogate an accused in a money laundering case.
As per the scheme of the Act, the ED has to collect material, investigate, search, seize, and attach properties, besides arresting the person.
Thereafter, if no case was made out against the accused, a closure report has to be filed. When the ED has the power to file a closure report, it definitely has the power to conduct further investigation, he added.
“Filing of a bail petition is an acknowledgement by the accused that he is in custody. Balaji filed the petition on 16 June and it was dismissed by the sessions judge. Now, how will the petitioner get over this?” Mehta said.
Pointing out the reason for not taking Balaji into custody, Mehta said that the ED had sought the opinion of doctors at Kauvery Hospital, Chennai, where Balaji has been admitted, and they recommended avoiding stressful conditions that might precipitate cardiac events.
They further insisted that interrogation can be done only with continuous cardiac monitoring.
He also submitted that on 17 June, the ED obtained a medical opinion and informed the sessions judge that this is the reason for not taking Balaji into custody.
Further, the Solicitor General asserted, “If we had not applied for custodial interrogation, we would have been called fools for not applying within the first 15 days of arrest.”
Mehta also submitted that if after the filing of the HCP the judicial order of remand intervenes, then the custody cannot be illegal.
Senthil Balaji was under judicial order of custody when the HCP was filed. Therefore, the present HCP will not lie.
Moreover, the arrest and remand were not challenged before the appellate forum, he pointed out.
Recording the arguments, the judge adjourned the case to 14 July.
Meanwhile, the Principal Sessions Court extended the judicial remand of Senthil Balaji till 26 July.
Balaji, who at present is admitted at Kauvery Hospital, was produced before Principal Sessions Judge S Alli through video conferencing.
The judge reportedly enquired about Balaji’s health and the minister replied that he was recovering but that he has discomfort at the site of the operation.
May 08, 2024
May 07, 2024
May 07, 2024
May 07, 2024
May 06, 2024
May 06, 2024
