Today, in Senthil Balaji’s land acquisition case, Additional Solicitor General Sundaresan stirred up controversies by withdrawing. In 30 cases where the accused were acquitted, how can one believe that he is not committing any crimes, questioned the Directorate of Vigilance.
Former Minister Senthil Balaji, who was imprisoned by the Directorate of Vigilance for violating the Prevention of Corruption Act in the land acquisition case, faced his second round of inquiry today when Justice Anand Venkatesh visited. At that time, Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan withdrew as a prosecutor in the Directorate of Vigilance.
At that time, he refuted the allegations made by the Directorate of Vigilance against him and resigned from the Directorate of Vigilance, stating that he would work in the agriculture department. He also claimed that he had embezzled ₹67 crores, ranging from ₹2 lakhs to ₹12 lakhs, under the pretext of providing jobs in the animal husbandry department. He is facing three more cases in connection with this.
Evidence collected in these cases is being investigated by a special court in Chennai, specially constituted to hear cases against MPs and MLAs. According to the Supreme Court’s directive, only the Directorate of Vigilance has obtained evidence. He clarified that these evidences have not been tampered with.
Furthermore, after the dismissal of the previous land acquisition case, there have been no further changes in Senthil Balaji’s ministerial position other than his resignation, apart from starting the inquiry into the Directorate of Vigilance. He has also been referred to as a potential accused, along with Shanmugam and Ashokumar, who are still fugitives. It was also suggested by Additional Solicitor General Sundaresan that they should be considered suspects.
Moreover, all the evidence collected in the case is stored by another investigative agency. These were obtained in 2020 and sent for forensic examination. The Directorate of Vigilance has not created or altered any evidence. The prosecution of the Central Crime Branch has only relied on the reports submitted by the investigating officer, the Additional Solicitor General Sundaresan added.
If acquitted in 30 cases: Furthermore, if he is acquitted in the 30 cases where he has been accused, he cannot be assumed to be innocent of any crime. The investigation must begin under the Directorate of Vigilance. He should not be provided bail to attend court hearings. Additional Solicitor General Sundaresan reiterated the need to dismiss the bail petition.