Will lay down law on high courts revoking orders dictated in open courts: SC

The top court posted the matter for hearing on November 22. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sait, who contended that his case was reheard within days after allowing his plea for quashing of the proceedings in the matter. The SC bench had earlier sought report from the Madras High Court’s Registrar General on the issue.

On September 30, after inspecting the report from the HC, the top court had called the decision of the high court to re-hear the matter as ‘absolutely wrong’. A high court bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam had on August 21 quashed the proceedings against Sait on the grounds that the corruption case registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), which is the predicate offense for the ED case , you have already been quashed by the high court.

Later, the order was revoked and the matter was reheard and judgment was reserved. According to Sait, a complaint was made in 2011 accusing him of having gotten illegal allotment of Tamil Nadu Housing Board plots at Thiruvanmiyur in Chennai. Based on the complaint, the DVAC registered an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On May 23, 2019, the high court quashed the FIR. Subsequently, on June 22, 2020, the ED registered an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) based on the case registered by the DVAC. However, the high court quashed the ED case on the basis of previous quashing of the predicate corruption case by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.