New Delhi, May 15 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer M S Jaffar Sait, effectively putting an end to money laundering proceedings initiated against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, reviewed a report submitted by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, revealing procedural irregularities in the High Court’s handling of the case.
The Supreme Court noted that the division bench of the Madras High Court had quashed the ECIR on August 21, 2024, but then inexplicably listed the matter for re-hearing on August 23, 2024, without issuing formal notice to the parties involved an action that drew strong objection from Sait’s counsel.
The ECIR was originally registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), alleging that Sait had illegally acquired a Tamil Nadu Housing Board plot in 2011. However, the foundational corruption case, filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), was quashed by the High Court in 2019 nullifying the predicate offence essential for maintaining the PMLA charges.
The case took an unusual turn when, after passing the final order on August 21, the division bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam listed the case for re-hearing two days later, without issuing notice.
Senior Advocate T Mohan, appearing for Sait, argued that recalling a final judgment without adhering to principles of natural justice was impermissible.
On September six, 2024, the apex court intervened, staying the High Court’s recall order and directing the Registrar General to provide a procedural account of the events.
The Registrar’s report confirmed that a final order had indeed been passed on August 21, and that the case status had shown it as disposed of until oral directions were later given to relist it.
After examining the report, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to give Sait an opportunity to be heard before attempting to recall its final order.
"If the Division Bench intended to recall the order passed on August 21, elementary principles of natural justice required the Bench to issue notice to the parties, especially the appellant, to show cause as to why the final order should not be recalled," the Court stated.
Further strengthening Sait’s case, the Supreme Court noted that all predicate offences against him and the other accused had been quashed by separate High Court orders, including a final order dated April four, 2025, which disposed of the complaint against the last remaining accused.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that since no predicate offence now remained, the ECIR could not be sustained.
"Thus, the scenario which emerges today is that the predicate offence does not survive in the sense that it has been quashed against all the accused," the Court observed.
However, the Bench clarified that should the order quashing the predicate offence be set aside in the future, the ED would be at liberty to seek restoration of the ECIR.
UNI SNG SS