Will move High Court in PMLA case, says Dinakaran

On February 1, the High Court had reversed the trial court’s order discharging him from the cases and had asked him to face trial in both the money laundering cases pending for the past two decades. While one of the cases pertains to the transfer of 1.04 crore US dollars to Dipper Investment through Barclay Bank, Virgin Islands, the other relates to the transfer of 44.37 lakh Pounds through West Bank Limited, Ireland. 

On May 18, 2015, the Economic Offences court at Egmore while discharging him from both the cases, had also discharged his aunt Sasikala, from the Bharani Beach Resorts case in which she was charged with transferring 19.9 Lakh US dollars, through a staff at Indian Bank’s Abiramapuram branch. 

But on February 1, Justice G Chockalingam of the Madras High Court before whom an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate had come up, set aside the discharge of Dinakaran and Sasikala, presently in jail after being convicted by the Apex Court in the Rs.66.65 Crore disproportionate assets case. 

The judge had directed the trial court to proceed with the trial and accordingly Dinakaran had appeared before the Economic Offences Court-II judge, Malarmathi on March 17. The judge on recording his presence had posted the case to March 22 for commencing the trial proceedings. 

However, when the case came up for hearing on Wednesday, Dinakaran’s counsel Jeenasenan, informed the economic offences court-II judge that they intend to file a recall petition before the high court instead of the Supreme Court as planned and hence sought adjournment of the trial proceedings.

In a big relief for AIADMK deputy general secretary TTV Dinakaran, the Madras High Court on Wednesday disposed a PIL challenging his candidature in the RK Nagar by-election citing his conviction and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). The First Bench comprising acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Justice RMT Teeka Raman directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities for remedy. The bench also held that “The court cannot interfere with Government’s policy matters and the issue fell under the domain of the executive.” 

The petitioner had sought to declare the Sections 8(1)(c)and 8(1)(e) of the Representation of Peoples act 1951 as illegal and unconstitutional as it restricted disqualification of a candidate only to an extent of criminal conviction alone. The plea had contended that Dinakaran had been imposed a penalty of Rs 28 crore for (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) violations, and the punishment was upheld by the Madras high court.