The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has urged the Madras High Court to vacate a stay granted by it on April 18, restraining an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate here from proceeding with the trial of a 22-year-old case pending against Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) of 1976.
When the petition came up for hearing before Justice M. Dhandapani on Thursday, he recused from hearing the matter, since he had served as a Special Public Prosecutor for ED before his elevation as a judge. Stating that it would not be appropriate on his part to hear the present case, he directed the Registry to list it before some other judge.
In an affidavit filed in support of its petition, the ED stated that it had initially lodged a complaint before the Magistrate’s court in 1996, accusing Dhinakaran of having acquired foreign exchange to the tune of $1,04, 93,313 and £44,37,242 from unauthorised dealers, without the express permission of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
He was also accused of transferring foreign exchange of $10.49 million to the credit of Dipper Investment, a company registered in British Virgin Islands and £4.43 million to Meer, Care and Desai, West Back and Bank of Ireland, without the general or special permission of RBI. The transactions were allegedly in contravention of the provisions of FERA.
After filing the complaint, the ED obtained a letter rogatory from the Magistrate and secured certain documents from the United Kingdom.
Therefore, in 2001, another complaint was filed before the Magistrate with respect to alleged crimes detected after the issuance of Letter Rogatory. However, in 2006, Dhinakaran contended that there could not be two complaints for the same bunch of transactions.
Delay in trial
This plea was rejected by the Magistrate in 2007 and he preferred a revision petition before the High Court, which also dismissed his plea. This process of filing one petition after another in the trial court and challenging its orders before the High Court continued for years together, thereby delaying the trial.
It was absolutely necessary to vacate the stay granted by the High Court on the trial proceedings, in order to take the complaints to their logical end, the ED pleaded with the court.