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.
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 At this, the counsel for Dhinakaran sought withdrawal of the recall plea, which was allowed to be withdrawn as "dismissed."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.
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}