AIADMK leader skips hearing in FERA case

Tells court that he is busy with the upcoming byelection

March 25, 2017 01:02 am | Updated 07:23 am IST - CHENNAI

T.T.V. Dhinakaran after filing his nomination in Chennai on Thursday. M. PRABHU

T.T.V. Dhinakaran after filing his nomination in Chennai on Thursday. M. PRABHU

The AIADMK (Amma) candidate for the upcoming bypoll in the Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar Assembly constituency, T.T.V. Dhinakaran, on Friday did not attend court proceedings in a case of violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) registered against him by the Enforcement Directorate 21 years ago. He stated that he was busy with the byelection.

Instead, his counsel filed a petition to adjourn the case until the election was over, irking the additional chief metropolitan magistrate S. Malarmathy.

Mr. Dhinakaran has been charged with illegally obtaining $1,04,93,313 in foreign exchange and depositing it in the current account of Dipper Investments Ltd., a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, with Barclays Bank, Sutton, United Kingdom. Recently, the Madras High Court upheld a penalty of ₹28 crore imposed on him by the FERA Board. As he failed to pay the fine, the Enforcement Directorate initiated criminal proceedings against him in the ACMM-Economic Offences-II court here.

On March 17, Ms. Malarmathy directed Mr. Dhinakaran to appear before her on March 22. She then adjourned the case to Friday. However, on Friday, Mr. Dhinakaran did not turn up and his advocates filed petitions seeking to dispense with his personal appearance and to adjourn the trial until the byelection is over.

Rejecting this, the ACMM ordered his advocates to begin arguments in the case. But they sought to adjourn the matter citing that senior counsels were pre-occupied with the election work. Ms. Malarmathy, however, asked the senior advocates to be present later in the day at 3.30 p.m. and to advance arguments on the petitions.

But the same group of advocates who appeared in the morning returned and prayed her to adjourn the case.

Magistrate irked

A visibly irked ACMM refused to do so and said, “Bring your senior advocates. This is a 21-year-old case. Don’t you think this one is important? Or else you argue the case. I need to show progress in the case.”

Again, they pleaded with her to adjourn the case. Heeding their plea, the ACMM said, “I will wait until 5.30 p.m and you ask them to come.” Later, senior advocates B.Kumar and M.A. Jinasenan rushed to the court at 4.15 p.m and apologised to her.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.