HC refuses to discharge Minister Senthilbalaji from one of four job racket cases pending against him

Orders de novo investigation in two of the cases to find out whether the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act will also get attracted

The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Minister for Electricity and Prohibition V. Senthilbalaji to discharge him from one of the four job racket cases pending against him. The court also dismissed a plea by a co-accused to quash the case. It, however, ordered de novo (anew) investigation into two of the four cases.

Though the investigation in all four cases had been completed and chargesheets too had been filed before a special court for legislators in 2021 itself, Justice V. Sivagnanam ordered fresh investigation in the two cases related to appointment of drivers and junior engineers when Mr. Senthilbalaji was Transport Minister in Jayalalithaa’s Cabinet in 2014.

The judge ordered that the de novo investigation in the two cases must be conducted without reference to the earlier investigation on record and that it should comprehensively cover all aspects to find out whether the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) of 1988 would also get attracted against the accused.

If there was any reluctance on the part of the investigators to press the charges under the PCA, the special court would be at liberty to alter the charges by exercising its powers under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge said while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by the accused involved in the job racketing cases.

Justice Sivagnanam ordered that the investigators must share relevant materials and documents with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), represented by its Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh, if they end up unearthing commission of cognisable offences after completing the de novo investigation in the two cases.

Such sharing of information would help the ED in invoking its jurisdiction to commence a separate inquiry under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002, the judge said. While the petitions before him were related to only appointment of drivers and junior engineers, the other two cases were related to appointment of bus conductors.