FERA case: ED seeks dismissal of Dhinakaran plea, HC reserves order

The Enforcement Directorate has sought dismissal of the plea filed by AIADMK (Amma) leader TTV Dhinakaran in the Madras High Court for staying the order of framing of charges by a lower court in a case filed by the ED alleging Foreign Exchange Regulation Act violations.
On July 7, the high court had granted interim stay on all further proceedings in an Economic Offences Court against Dhinakaran in the FERA violation case.
Justice M S Ramesh had said, "On the face of the records, reasonable opportunities have not been extended to the petitioner during the course of hearing. Notice to respondent (Enforcement Directorate) returnable byJuly 17. Private notice permitted."

Additional Solicitor General G. Rajagopalan, who argued on the counter affidavit filed by the ED yesterday, said Dhinakaran's plea for setting aside the order of framing of charges by the trial court was not all maintainable.
The case against Dhinakaran is pending from 1996 and ample opportunities had been given to him on the basis of natural justice, the ASG said and sought for vacating the interim stay.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Ramesh reserved orders.

Dhinakaran had filed a petition for staying the order on framing of charges by the Economic Offences Court (I) at Egmore on April 19 in the case filed by the ED alleging Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) violations.

In its counter, the ED said the petition was filed only to drag the proceedings pending before the economic offences court.
The ASG submitted that the stage of framing charges in the case, pending from 1996, was reached only April 19 this year, that too after 21 years after so many adjournments by the petitioner.
He said the ED had filed a memo before the lower court for conducting the trial on a day-to-day basis hence it was not fair on the part of the petitioner to say that he was not afforded opportunity of hearing before framing of charges.

He said the counsel for the petitioner was present for every hearing and it "can be presumed that ample opportunity was given on the basis of natural justice".
In the counter affidavit, the ED also said that before framing of charges, the trial court had examined all the documents furnished and applied its "judicial mind and followed the principles of natural justice".
It sought dismissal of the petition filed by Dhinakaran for granting stay on the order of framing charges by the trial court.
Dhinakaran had said the additional chief metropolitan magistrate did not hear his counsel before framing the charges and pleaded that the order be set aside.

The ED case was that as the sole director of M/s Dipper Investments Limited Company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, Dhinakaran had transferred over USD 10 million without RBI permission.
The ED said the company maintained an account with a UK- based bank and alleged that in 1994 issued 21 cheques having a total value of USD 1,04,93,313 which were deposited in the account of M/s Dipper Investments.
It alleged the money was transferred through a person who was not an authorised dealer in foreign exchange and without general or special permission of the RBI.
A total of six charges were framed against Dhinakaran for alleged violation of various sections of the FERA, which has been repealed.

Though registered in 1996, the ED could not proceed ahead with the case due to several rounds of litigation.
Dhinakaran was also discharged from the case, but onFebruary 1this year, Justice G Chockalingam allowed a revision petition filed by the ED and set aside Dhinakaran's discharge.
It paved the way for resumption of the case and led to framing of charges onApril 19.
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.