The Madras High Court on Monday, April 22, 2024, ordered notice to Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a plea to take action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 with respect to the seizure of ₹3.99 crore from three train passengers at Tambaram railway station in Chennai on April 7, and another reported seizure of ₹28.5 lakh from DMK’s Tirunelveli East district secretary’s office on April 4.
A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and Sunder Mohan directed ED special public prosecutor N. Ramesh to take notice and obtain instructions by Wednesday, April 24. The judge however, recorded that prima facie, there did not appear to be any reason for invoking the PMLA since the offences mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR), registered by the local police, were not scheduled offences under the Act.
When the judges pointed out that the FIR regarding the seizure of ₹3.99 crore had been registered under Sections 171C, 171E and 171F (all related to bribery and undue influence in elections) and 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code, Mr. Ramesh said Section 171 was not a scheduled offence under PMLA. Nevertheless, he sought time to get detailed instructions from the ED.
C.M. Raghavan, an independent candidate who contested for the Tirunelveli Parliamentary constituency, had filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the ED to consider a representation made by him on April 7 to invoke the PMLA against BJP candidate Nainar Nagenthran and Congress candidate C. Robert Bruce on the ground that the seized money was meant for distribution to voters.
His counsel A. Immanuel told the court that the three train passengers who were carrying ₹3.99 crore from Chennai to Tirunelveli, were found to be close associates of the BJP candidate of the Tirunelveli constituency. Similarly, he contended that the ₹28.5 lakh seized from a DMK office-bearer was actually meant to be used to bribe voters in favour of the Congress candidate in Tirunelveli constituency.
The counsel insisted that both the candidates must be proceeded against, under the PMLA.
