Madras HC rejects ED plea to transfer disproportionate assets case, cites near-complete trial
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to transfer a disproportionate assets case involving former DMK minister Anitha R. Radhakrishnan and his family members from a court in Thoothukudi to Madurai. The First Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, held that such a transfer would only delay a trial that was already on the verge of conclusion.
The case, originally registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), alleges that Mr. Radhakrishnan amassed unexplained assets worth ₹2.68 crore during his tenure as a minister in the AIADMK cabinet between 2001 and 2006. The trial was being heard by the Principal District and Sessions Court in Thoothukudi.
According to court records, the prosecution had examined 79 witnesses and marked 312 exhibits, while the defence had examined six witnesses and marked 74 exhibits. Both sides had completed their oral and written arguments in part, with the case essentially at the final stage of adjudication.
The ED had sought the transfer to enable a joint trial with a separate money laundering complaint it had filed in 2025 before the PMLA special court in Madurai. However, the High Court noted that the Madurai court was yet to take cognisance of the money laundering case. The judges also highlighted that the ED had not even obtained the mandatory sanction to prosecute the former minister, despite more than a year having passed since the complaint was filed.
Referring to Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the bench observed that a joint trial of the predicate offence and the money laundering charge is permissible only if both the courts concerned have taken cognisance of their respective cases. In this instance, the Madurai court had not done so, and therefore the question of transferring the Thoothukudi case did not arise.
“Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA exists to save time and to avoid the risk of two courts reaching different conclusions on the same facts. It was never meant to serve as a means of reopening a trial that has, for all practical purposes, already been fought and finished,” the judges wrote in their order.
The bench further observed that transferring the disproportionate assets case at the present stage would not serve any legal purpose, but would instead cause undue delay. “A trial delayed at its very end, for reasons having nothing to do with its own merits, is a trial denied in substance,” the Chief Justice added.
After dismissing the ED's plea, the High Court vacated the interim stay it had granted in April 2026, which had halted proceedings in Thoothukudi. The court directed the sessions court there to proceed with the trial with all due expedition.
The order provides clarity on the scope of Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA and reinforces the principle that procedural requests must not be allowed to obstruct the conclusion of a trial that is in its final stages. It also underscores the importance of ensuring that criminal cases are disposed of without unnecessary delay, particularly when both sides have already presented their arguments.
