Madras High Court: In a bail plea filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji for alleged offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), N. Anand Venkatesh, J. while refusing to grant bail to Senthil Balaji, said that he was involved in a cash for job scam by misusing his position as a transport minister and thereby, genuine aspirants for the job were deprived of level playing field and, in their place, persons who paid money were accommodated. Thus, if he is let out on bail in a case of this nature, it will send a wrong signal and it will be against the larger public interest.
Background:
Between 2011 and 2016, Senthil Balaji was holding the position of Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu. While serving as a Minister, it is alleged that he, in connivance with his personal assistants and along with his brother, orchestrated the collection of money by promising job opportunities in various positions within the Transport Department. This gave rise to several complaints made by candidates, who had paid the money but were not able to secure employment. The investigation ultimately ended with three final reports filed by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai in and in all these cases, Senthil Balaji has been arrayed as an accused and it is pending before MP/MLA Special Court.
Thereafter, the Enforcement Directorate entered the scene and after collecting the required information, it registered a case. Senthil Balaji was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14-06-2023. The petitioner had earlier filed multiple bail petitions which were rejected.
Analysis:
The Court took note of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), and said that under the PMLA regime jail is the rule and bail is the exception. The power of the Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon the satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 PMLA. While undertaking this exercise, the Court is required to take a prima facie view on the basis of materials collected during the investigation. The expression used in Section 45 of PMLA are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means that the Court has to find, from a prima facie view of the materials collected during investigation that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offence and that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence while on bail.
Concerning the evidence, namely a pen drive, the Court said that there is no tampering/antedating/overwriting etc. Thus, the Court held that the pen drive report is prima facie genuine, and it is a reliable material that can be taken into consideration at this stage. Therefore, the respondent has not indulged in tampering with the electronic records or that such tampering had even taken place or that such tampering had been done by the investigation agency in the predicate offences.
The Court remarked that it cannot conduct a roving enquiry or a mini trial to test the probative value of the electronic record relied upon by the respondent.
Moreover, the Court said that the process envisaged under Section 50 of PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and it is not an investigation and the authorities who are recording the statements are not police officers and therefore, these statements can be relied upon as admissible piece of evidence before the Court. The summons proceedings and recording of statements under PMLA are given the status of judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of PMLA. Thus, the statements that have been recorded by the respondent and which has been relied upon in the complaint must be taken to be important material implicating Senthil Balaji. The co-accused or the suspected persons in the predicate offence cannot automatically be brought within the same status in the PMLA proceedings and it is always left open to the authorities to deal with them as witnesses. Therefore, the statements that have been recorded from the witnesses and which have been relied upon, is also a strong material that prima facie establishes the offence of money laundering against Senthil Balaji.
The Court added that Senthil Balaji has not made out a case by satisfying this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty. Hence, the twin conditions that are mandatory under Section 45(1) PMLA has not been satisfied by him.
Concerning the submission of Senthil Balaji that he has resigned from his position as a Minister and therefore, the apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses no longer subsists, the Court said that the petitioner resigned from the post of Minister without a portfolio just one day before this bail petition’s hearing. The fact that he continued to hold the position as a Minister for nearly eight months and that to without a portfolio when he was inside the jail, shows his tremendous influence and the importance that is given to him by the State Government. Thus, the Court held that Senthil Balaji continues to wield a lot of influence on the Government.
The Court said that Senthil Balaji was involved in a cash for job scam by misusing his position as a transport minister and thereby, genuine aspirants for the job were deprived of level playing field and, in their place, persons who paid money were accommodated. Thus, if Senthil Balaji is let out on bail in a case of this nature, it will send a wrong signal and it will be against the larger public interest. Therefore, the Court held that even under Section 439 CrPC, Senthil Balaji is not entitled to be considered for enlargement on bail.
However, after noting that Senthil Balaji has suffered incarceration for over eight months, it directed the Special Court to dispose the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
[V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 284, Order dated 28-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Senior Counsel Aryama Sundaram
For Respondent: Additional Solicitor General AR.L.Sundaresan, Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh
