Madras High Court quashes LOC against DMK leader EV Velu, extends interim protection

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday (July 28) quashed the look-out circular (LOC) issued against former minister and senior DMK leader EV Velu, but directed him to obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional court if he was to travel abroad, and also permitted the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to continue its investigation into the alleged Highways Department irregularities.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted the DVAC time until August 14 to file its counter affidavit, permitted the agency to continue the investigation, and allowed it to summon Velu for inquiry in connection with the case.

The court also extended until August 14 its earlier interim order restraining the authorities from taking any coercive action against Velu, quashed the LOC issued against him, and directed that he obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional court before travelling abroad.

Meanwhile, the court accepted an impleading petition filed by Arappor Iyakkam opposing Velu's plea to quash the case.

The DVAC had registered an FIR against Velu and others on June 25 based on a complaint lodged by Arappor in 2022, alleging that payments were made to a contractor before the commencement of road infrastructure works, resulting in corruption in the allotment of project funds.

Following the State government's sanction to prosecute Velu, the FIR was registered. The DVAC claimed that there was prima facie material indicating that the accused, including Velu, had entered into a criminal conspiracy, causing loss to the State exchequer. The case was registered under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 (c), 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (a), and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Meanwhile, Velu, who had travelled to Singapore for medical treatment, was issued a Look Out Circular.

When Velu's petition to quash the FIR and his challenge to the LOC issued by the DVAC came up for hearing, senior counsel P Wilson, appearing for Velu, submitted that Velu had already appeared before the DVAC and cooperated with the investigation in compliance with the court's earlier directions. In such circumstances, the continuation of the LOC was unnecessary, he contended.

State Public Prosecutor R John Sathyan sought time to file a counter affidavit.