Charges framed against Dhinakaran in FERA case, HC junks plea

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Apr 19 2017 | 9:42 PM IST
An economic offences court today framed charges against AIADMK leader TTV Dhinakaran in a FERA violation case as the Madras High Court today refused to quash it along with another similar case.
Justice V Bharathidasan refused to call back the two FERA violation cases against AIADMK leader, that the judge had remitted earlier to the economic offences court for trial.
Justice Bharathidasan before whom Dhinakaran's recall plea came up for hearing today, made it clear that the order cannot be recalled "as it never suffered nullity."
At this, the counsel for Dhinakaran sought withdrawal of the recall plea, which was allowed to be withdrawn as "dismissed."
The high court on February 1, 2017 had set aside the order of the Economic Offences Court, discharging Dhinakaran from the cases and had sent them back to the lower court for trial.
Dhinkaran had moved the high court, challenging its single-judge bench order.
The economic offences court, meanwhile, framed charges against Dhinakaran in one of the two cases when he appeared before it.
With the framing of charges by the court, Dinakaran now stands formally indicted in the Dipper investment case in which he has been accused by the Enforcement Directorate of transferring USD one crore illegally.
A court frames charges against an accused after it finds sufficient prima facie evidence against him to put him on formal trial in the case.
The economic offences court is likely to frame charges against him in the second FERA case pertaining to Barclay's Bank, where Dhinakaran has been charged with transferring 37 lakh Pounds illegally.
In another development, a case related to the FERA violations against Dhinakaran's aunt VK Sasikala, now serving jail term in Bengaluru in a disproportionate assets case, was adjourned to tomorrow by the EO court.
During the last hearing, Sasikala had offered to attend the court proceedings via video conference in the FERA case.
The case against her relates to alleged violations in transactions, including remittances for a transponder and up-linking charges for the erstwhile JJ TV channel.
The prosecution had alleged that the payments were illegally routed to US-based Rimsat through firms having network in the Philippines and Singapore.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 19 2017 | 9:42 PM IST

Next Story