New Delhi:Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji is preventing the Enforcement Directorate from exercising its right of custodial interrogation and bringing the truth to life in a cash-for-jobs scam, the central agency Wednesday told the Supreme Court, which reserved its verdict on the pleas of the DMK leader and his spouse challenging his arrest.
A bench comprising justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh reserved its verdict on the petitions of the minister and his wife Megala, against the Madras High Court order upholding his arrest in a money laundering case linked to the alleged scam. The bench heard submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, and senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi, who represented the DMK leader and his spouse in the case.
Responding to the submissions of Sibal and Rohatgi, the solicitor general said the ED was fully empowered under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (which relates to investigation and custody of the accused) to seek custodial interrogation of an accused. On the other hand, Rohatgi, assisted by lawyer Amit Anand Tiwari, Wednesday reiterated their claim that ED officials are not police officer and, moreover, the agency has no vested right to interrogate an accused in its custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The conduct of the accused has prevented the Enforcement Directorate from exercising its right of custodial interrogation, owing to an order of the court, the law officer said. To bring truth to life was not just a right of the probe agency, but also a duty owed to the victims of crime allegedly committed by the minister, he said.
Also read: Governor cannot take unilateral decision on removing Senthil Balaji from ministerial post: TN govt tells HC
This is a duty that the ED was not allowed to perform owing to intervening circumstances..., he said. Referring to section 167 of CrPC, the law officer said it applied to the PMLA. The provision is not a made to measure' provision, where the section will only apply with respect to judicial custody, default bail, and other things, but not to the grant of police remand, he said.
Ultimately, the game is that he (minister) wants to frustrate the process by relying on the technicality of a judgment that does not apply in his case, he said. Mehta said the facts of the case show how the "system was taken for a ride" and urged the court to permit him to make detailed submissions on Wednesday.
Earlier, the counsel for the accused had vehemently argued that the provision cannot be used by the ED to seek custodial interrogation of the accused. Sibal said the power to make an arrest under the PMLA cannot be conflated with the power to seek police remand in view of the 2022 judgment of the apex court in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case.
The counsel for the minister submitted that once the period of 15 days from the date of arrest has expired, the investigating agency cannot demand custodial interrogation as it is not permitted under law. The solicitor general had said the present case has to be decided expeditiously as the probe agency only has time till August 13 to quiz the minister in custody as the 60 days time, prescribed under section 167 of the CrPC to complete the probe and for filing the charge sheet, ends on August 13.
Balaji, who continues to be a minister without portfolio in the Tamil Nadu government even after his arrest on June 14, and his wife assailed a Madras High Court order upholding his arrest by the probe agency in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged cash-for-jobs scam in the state's transport department.
The top court had on July 21 sought the ED's response on the petitions filed by Balaji and his wife Megala challenging the July 14 order of the Madras High Court upholding his arrest by the probe agency in a money laundering case. The minister and his wife have filed two separate petitions in the top court challenging the high court order.
Besides upholding the arrest of the minister, the high court had held as valid his subsequent remand in judicial custody by a sessions court in the money laundering case arising from the alleged scam in the state's transport department when he was the transport minister. According to the complainant, he had given Rs 2.40 lakh for securing a job in a state-run transport corporation. The high court order that upheld Balaji's arrest said this was the specific offence of bribery for which an FIR was filed, after which the ED had registered the Enforcement Case Information Report (the ED's version of FIR). The ED had subsequently arrested Balaji. (PTI)
