Chennai: The Principal Sessions Court in Chennai on Tuesday granted the Enforcement Directorate (ED) more time to file its response in the money-laundering case against former Tamil Nadu minister V. Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok Kumar.
The court adjourned the witness examination to October 27 after hearing a plea filed by one of the accused seeking to defer the proceedings. The case stems from allegations of large-scale cheating in the state’s transport sector recruitment.
According to the prosecution, when Balaji served as Transport Minister, jobs were promised in exchange for cash from several aspirants. The initial cheating and bribery case is already being tried before a special court in Chennai.
Based on that case, the ED launched a parallel probe into the alleged laundering of illicit funds and filed charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Balaji, his brother Ashok Kumar, and others.
In the ongoing trial before the Principal Sessions Court, the ED had begun examining witnesses to establish its charges. However, two of the accused — including Karthikeyan, a close aide of Balaji — filed a petition requesting that the witness examination in the money-laundering case be postponed until the special court trying the original recruitment scam delivers its judgment.
They argued that simultaneous proceedings could prejudice their defence.
When the matter came up on Tuesday before Principal Sessions Judge S. Karthikeyan, former minister Senthil Balaji and nine other accused were present in court. Balaji’s brother Ashok Kumar, however, did not appear.
The defence sought time for the ED to file its counter-affidavit to their plea for adjournment. Allowing the request, the judge granted the ED time to respond and postponed further witness examination to October 27.
The case is among the most high-profile money-laundering probes currently being pursued by the Enforcement Directorate in Tamil Nadu.
Balaji, who was arrested by the ED in June 2023, has faced multiple rounds of legal battles over the scope and timing of the probe. The adjournment allows the ED to respond formally before the court decides whether to halt or continue the ongoing witness depositions.
