The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to quash the money laundering charges against Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Balwa and others, accused in a money laundering case connected with the 2G Spectrum scam.
Besides Mr. Balwa other accused in the case are Rajiv Aggarwal, Vinod Goenka and five companies against whom the Enforcement Directorate had gramed charges for parking of illegal gratification of Rs 200 cr in Kalaignar TV.
A Bench of Justices J.S. Khehar and C. Nagappan, while refusing to quash the charges framed, however permitted them to approach the apex court after the final order is passed by Special CBI court.
During the earlier round of litigation the apex court had refused to stay the proceedings in the trial court when it was pleaded that irreparable damage if charges are framed against them.
The petitioners contended that the offences they had been accused of having committed in 2007-08 were not part of the schedule of offences mentioned under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act till May 31, 2009. It was argued that penal law could not be applied retrospectively and such use would be, in effect, a violation of his Constitutional rights.
A Special Court had on October 3, 2014 ordered framing of charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against 19 persons, including Mr. Balwa, former Telecom Minister A. Raja, DMK chief M. Karunanidhi’s daughter Kanimozhi and wife Dayalu Ammal, Vinod Goenka, Directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd, Asif Balwa and Rajiv Agarwal, Kalaignar TV (KTV) MD Sharad Kumar and its Director P Amirtham and Bollywood producer Ka rim Morani for parking of illegal gratification of Rs. 200 cr in Kalaignar TV. They all are on bail.
As the Delhi High Court had been barred by the apex court from entertaining any appeals arising out of trials in the 2G cases, the accused approached the Supreme Court seeking various reliefs.
They argued that the special leave petitions should determine the substantial question of law concerning the fundamental rights of the accused persons, as to whether an act, committed prior to the enactment of the (amended) PMLA, could be made subject matter of a criminal trial, and as to whether the same shall be violative of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution, that is, being against the principles of ex post facto law.
