Feb 14, 2011, 04.13am IST

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ED-CBI-charges-may-be-clubbed-in-Satyam-case/articleshow/7491185.cms

NEW DELHI: Enforcement Directorate's decision to file chargesheet in the Rs 7,000 crore Satyam scam threatens to bring the two-year-long trial process in the CBI case against B Ramamlinga Raju and other accused to nought.

The ED's chargesheet accusing Raju and others of laundering money abroad under the stringent Prevention of  Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can only be filed before a court presided by one not below the rank of additional sessions judge.

In contrast, the CBI had filed its first chargesheet against Raju and others before a magisterial court in Hyderabad on April 7, 2009, and followed it with a supplementary chargesheet on November 24, 2009. The magistrate had on October 25, 2010, framed charges against the accused.

With ED ready to file a chargesheet, the law ministry's attention was drawn to an anomaly in the PMLA that could jettison the trial either in the money laundering case or in the CBI case for corporate fraud, because no accused can be tried twice for the same offence in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

In view of the confusion on ED's future steps without jeopardising the trial, the government sought additional solicitor general Vivek Tankha's opinion. Tankha said if the mandate of PMLA was not followed, it could have a "deleterious and irreparable effect for the purpose of prosecution" of accused for the offence of money laundering.

If the direction of the Supreme Court, which while cancelling the bail of Raju and other accused had asked the trial to be completed by July 31, was sacrosanct, so was the mandate of PMLA, he said.

Attorney general G E Vahanvati's opinion was also sought and he agreed with Tankha that the CBI case trial may require shifting to the sessions court to enable it to be joined with ED's case and a subsequent joint trial. This set off a chain reaction. The CBI rushed to law minister Veerappa Moily to express anxiety relating to the trial in the fraud case already underway for nearly two years.

But the government felt it would be in the interest of justice to join the two cases to allow ED to press money laundering charges against the accused, even if it meant a fresh trial in the CBI case.

An identical situation could arise in the 2G spectrum scam, which is being probed by the CBI about the corruption angle in the irregular allotment of mobile licences and by the ED looking into the money laundering aspect.

This has set legal minds thinking for an amendment in various criminal laws allowing one special court to hear a case which is investigated by both the CBI and ED.