Heated exchange in Madras High Court after Bench recalls its order quashing ED case

The Madras High Court on Tuesday was privy to a heated exchange over its decision to revoke its earlier order quashing a money laundering case against a retired police officer [MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement]..The money laundering case was filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Jaffar Sait. On August 21, a Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam quashed the ED's complaint in the matter against Sait. Two days later, on August 23, the same Bench recalled its August 21 order and decided to re-hear the matter on merits..Representing Sait today, Senior Counsel T Mohan strongly objected to this turn of events."On August 23 there was no indication by your lordships about what made you change your mind," Mohan told the Bench today."You ask your junior, we told him. 150 cases are listed every day before us. We can't remember everything. Is it not unreasonable on your part to ask us what you said that day that week? If we ask you the same thing, what did you say last week ... will you remember?" Justice Subramaniam replied."That is the privilege of the lawyer, he can forget. But because of the nature of your office, judges can't. It is a burden," Mohan remarked."Have we committed a sin by accepting judgeship? We are also humans," Justice Subramaniam retorted.The judge then urged the senior counsel to focus his efforts on arguing the matter on merits."You (Mohan) might have something else in your mind that you are not saying. We understand. But please argue on merits," Justice Subramaniam said..The case against Sait involves allegations that he illegally acquired a Tamil Nadu Housing Board plot of land in 2011. A corruption case registered in the matter against Sait by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) was quashed by the Madras High Court in 2019. Sait then moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the ED's complaint in the matter as well. On August 21, Justices Subramaniam and Sivagnanam quashed the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) after noting that the predicate case (DVAC case) had already been quashed. However, on August 23, a Bench of Justices Subramaniam and R Sakthivel had the occasion to question the ED on money laundering cases fizzling out before reaching their logical conclusion, owing to the quashing of the predicate offence FIRs.This Bench went on to say that cases registered by ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be allowed to be washed away. The Court added that it will examine the issue in detail. The Bench also asked the ED's counsel to submit explanations to the queries regarding the dropping of money laundering cases, particularly against former IPS officer Jaffar Sait.The exchange then prompted the Court to revoke the August 21 order and rehear Sait's plea. .Senior counsel Mohan today contended that if at all the matter is being reheard, it should be taken up by another Bench."Since the last order (of quashing) was passed in open court. The questions were posed (to ED) by another Bench (on August 23), and your Lordships have not given any reasons for the change in mind, as an officer of law, I must submit that it will not be appropriate for this bench to preside over the hearing in this matter," Mohan said.He added, "Uncertainty might be great for cricket. In a court of law, I want certainty. The prosecutor said the last time that the predicate offence had been quashed. Given the fact that this Court accepts Vijay Madanlal (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India), it (recall of August 21 order) will be paradoxical.".The Court, meanwhile, recounted that even the August 21 order was passed only because the ED counsel had conceded that the PMLA case may not survive once the predicate case has been quashed. "You were not there. Your junior asked for adjournment but the other side said that will not be necessary as it was conceding," Justice Subramaniam told Mohan. Special Public Prosecutor N Ramesh vouched for the judge's recollection of events."The matter was not argued at all on August 21. Simply an adjournment was sought. The Senior Counsel can't say that the matter was heard and a conclusion was arrived at," he said.Senior counsel Mohan, however, remained firm in his objections."Let the stenographer record everything I say so that there is no confusion. With great respect, I have not said anything contrary to the records ... Your Lordship must tell me what is it that led my Lordships to take a contrary view ... I have also filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the order. I am bringing it to the court's notice on the de novo hearing," Mohan said. .Mohan added that his role as a lawyer may sometimes require that he makes submissions that may seem unpalatable to the judges. "But I have to do so in the interest of my client. If I say your Lordships are wrong in recalling the order then I have to cite all relevant judgements. Even if that seems unpalatable to Your Lordships. Please call for the records. The counter is nothing but a compilation of judgments," he said. The Court eventually reserved its order in the matter..[Read Live Coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.