[ad_1]
Representational image
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 3, 2024) asked whether judges are not entitled to refrain from signing an order dictated in open court and decide to hear the case, by giving due opportunity to the litigants to make their submissions, before taking a final decision.
He raised the question, while presiding over a Division Bench along with Justice V. Sivagnanam, after former Director General of Police (DGP) M.S. Jaffar Sait questioned as to how his petition could be listed for rehearing after the judges had dictated orders in favour of him, in a money laundering case, on August 21.
Representing the retired DGP, senior counsel T. Mohan, cited various Supreme Court verdicts to drive home his point that a verdict dictated in open court could not be nullified, unless there were exceptional circumstances, and that signing of a judgement was only a formality.
However, Justice Subramaniam told the senior counsel that when the present petition for quashing a 2020 Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) came up for hearing on August 21, only a junior counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and sought an adjournment.
Then, the ED Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) N. Ramesh brought it to the notice of the court that a case booked against the retired DGP by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) in 2011, for the predicate offence of obtaining irregular allotment of Tamil Nadu Housing Board plots in 2009, had got quashed in 2019.
It was after recording the submission of the SPP, the judges had dictated orders stating that the ECIR could also be quashed. However, later, they found that the ECIR need not be necessarily quashed in every other case where the case for predicate offence had been quashed and therefore decided to rehear the matter on merits.
The Registry was directed to list the matter for re-hearing on August 23 in order to give a fair opportunity to the petitioner as well as the ED to make their submissions on the merits of the case. The petitioner’s counsel appeared on August 23 and obtained an adjournment till August 28.
Another request for adjournment was made on August 28 and therefore, the matter was listed on Tuesday for hearing, Justice Subramaniam told the senior counsel and asked him to produce a copy of the order if it was his case that the court had already passed orders on the present petition to quash the ECIR.
The judge told Mr. Mohan that the order dictated in the open court was not even typed and therefore, the question of signing it will not arise. He asked the senior counsel to argue the petitioner’s plea for quashing the ECIR on merits instead of harping on a trivial issue relating to dictation of the order in the open court.
Thereafter, the senior counsel made his submissions on merits too by referring to the Supreme Court verdict in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s case and contended that the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 could not continue after the quashing of case related to predicate offence.
On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh told the court that the ED was entitled to continue the PMLA proceedings against the retired DGP since the case related to the predicate offence was quashed against him on a technical ground that government sanction had not been granted before initiating prosecution.
The SPP said, the case related to the predicate offence was still alive as against the other accused and therefore the ED was entitled to proceed with the ECIR. He also stated that the petitioner’s counsel was not heard at all before the August 21 dictation and therefore, it could not be considered as a court verdict.
After hearing both sides, the judges reserved their verdict on the plea for quashing the ECIR.
[ad_2]
Source link
