1 day to refute FERA charges; finish case in 90 days: Madras HC to Dhinakaran
Chennai: Setting aside the charges framed against All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) (Amma) deputy general secretary TTV Dhinakaran by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Egmore in a two-decade-old Fera violation case, the Madras high court has directed the ACMM to grant one-day time to him to put forth his arguments with regard to framing of charges on or before July 31 and then proceed with the trial and conclude the proceedings within three months.
Allowing the petition filed by Dinakaran, Justice MS Ramesh said the petitioner is permitted to put forth his arguments on the charges framed in FERA case.
Such an exercise shall be completed within one working day and such date shall be fixed by the ACMM on or before July 31.
“It is made clear that I have not expressed any of my views with regard to the merits of the petitioner’s case and it is open to the ACMM to frame charges against the petitioner, if such arguments are not advanced on the stipulated date”, the judge added.
The judge said, “Though I have not attributed the delay either on the prosecution or on the petitioner, the fact remains that the proceedings had been dragged on for an unreasonable long period. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious in nature and in order to secure the ends of justice, a speedy trial is undoubtedly warranted in the present case. In view of the same, the ACMM is directed to conclude the main proceedings, within3 months and if need be, on day-to-day basis”.
The judge said in the present incident, the petitioner had sought for only a day’s time for advancing his arguments with regards to framing of charges but the same was denied and the charges were framed on April 19, 2017.
The prosecution had put forth their arguments only on April 10- and on the next hearing, the Magistrate had rejected the petitioner’s request for adjournment and expressed his opinion that a prima facie case was made for framing charges. “In my considered view, one day adjournment could not have caused grave miscarriage of justice but on the other hand, would have extended an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner was permitted to put forth his argument within a stipulated time limit of one day alone”, the judge added.
The judge said, “I am conscious of the fact that by this order, the petitioner should not take advantage and protract the proceedings. Likewise by rejecting this petition, I am of the considered view that it would amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity of argument since framing of charges is an important event in the trial of warrant cases. In order to strike the balance between the prosecution’s objections and the petitioner’s request, it would be appropriate to direct the court below to grant one day time for the petitioner to put forth his arguments with regard to framing of charges”.
According to Enforcement Directorate, as the sole director of M/s Dipper Investments Limited, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, Dinakaran had transferred 1 crore US dollars without RBI permission. The company maintained a bank account in UK with Barclays bank Suttan Surrey and during the year 1994 about 21 cheques, totaling the value of US$ 1,04,93,313 were deposited in the account of M/s Dipper Investments in the Barclays Bank. The money was transferred through a person who was not an authorized dealer in foreign exchange and without general or special permission of the RBI.
