Former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, son-in-law and former minister P A Mohamed Riyas
The case stems from a recommendation by Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the state police chief under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to register a vigilance case against Vijayan and others in the alleged payoff case. Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, son-in-law and former minister P A Mohamed Riyas, and the other accused had filed the applications as they were not parties to the original petition. With the division bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John rejecting their applications, they cannot appeal against the single bench order as a matter of right. They can, however, challenge the division bench order before Supreme Court. The bench rejected the appellants’ contention that the single bench had passed the impugned order without hearing them, holding that an accused has no legal right to be heard before an FIR is registered in a corruption case. It also held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory when information furnished under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is accompanied by sufficient material disclosing a cognisable offence. Instead, the state govt constituted a special investigation team (SIT) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into ED’s recommendation.
Kochi: In a setback to former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his kin, Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed their applications seeking permission to appeal against a single bench order directing the registration of an FIR against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the alleged CMRL-Exalogic payoff case, as well as their appeals against the order.
In its judgment, the division bench cited several Supreme Court decisions holding that an accused public servant has no right to be heard before an FIR is registered. It also noted that a preliminary inquiry may be dispensed with when a senior officer receives a detailed, well-reasoned source information report that prima facie discloses a cognisable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also noted the state govt’s submission that it had already registered two vigilance cases in compliance with the single bench order.