Kochi: Kerala High Court on Friday directed the vigilance director to register an FIR against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan , his daughter T Veena and her husband, former minister P A Mohamed Riyas, under Prevention of Corruption Act over the alleged CMRL-Exalogic pay-off without delay.
The case arose from a communication issued by ED to the state police chief under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), recommending the registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. ED alleged that CMRL had paid Rs 3.28 crore to Exalogic Solutions, a defunct company owned by Veena, without receiving corresponding IT consultancy services. Instead of registering a case, the DGP constituted the SIT headed by crime branch SP Vikraman P to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the veracity of the allegations.
These materials had prompted ED to issue the communication under Section 66(2) of PMLA recommending the registration of an FIR. It, therefore, held that a preliminary inquiry by an SIT was unnecessary. The HC also set aside the state police chief’s order constituting a special investigation team (SIT) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter based on inputs from Enforcement Directorate (ED), instead of registering a case. Justice A Badharudeen issued the order on a petition filed by K M Shajahan, a social activist from Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a directive to the vigilance director to register a case. Shajahan alleged that the preliminary inquiry was intended to protect the corrupt. The HC observed that ED’s communication contained sufficient material to register a case, including statements of witnesses and suspected persons and other evidence beyond the notebooks and diaries. The court directed the DGP/ SIT head to hand over the information and details provided by ED to the vigilance director. It also directed ED to forward all necessary documents to the vigilance department, which must investigate the allegations through competent officers and file the final report without undue delay. Opposing the petition, advocate general K Jaju Babu defended the preliminary inquiry, arguing that the state govt had a duty to balance the allegations against the rights of the suspected persons. A separate petition filed by MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan seeking the same relief had also been dismissed by the HC and the decision had been upheld by Supreme Court. The court observed that the rejection of a complaint did not prevent the filing of a fresh complaint or the initiation of prosecution if adequate material became available later.
He also pointed out that the Muvattupuzha special court and the HC had previously dismissed petitions filed by the late Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery seeking an investigation into the same allegations. The HC, however, noted that several materials referred to in ED’s communication had been collected after the earlier petitions were dismissed. It further held that the earlier court orders would not stand in the way of an effective investigation based on the material disclosed in ED’s communication.