The HC bench orally asked the ED counsel whether the details of the oral statements supporting the allegations had been handed over to the state agenc
The petitioner had submitted a representation to the vigilance director on Sept 21 seeking registration of a case in the pay-off case and approached the court just two days later, alleging inaction, according to him. Kochi: The high court has reserved its order on a petition challenging the preliminary police inquiry in the CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case rather than registering an FIR against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his kin, including his daughter T Veena and her husband, former minister P A Mohammad Riyas, under the PC Act. The bench of Justice A Badharudeen was considering a petition filed by K M Shajahan, an activist from Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a directive to the vigilance department to register a case under the PC Act in the recommendation made by the ED to the state police chief to register a case in the pay-off case. Referring to the report submitted by the ED in a sealed cover, the bench orally asked the ED counsel whether the details of the oral statements supporting the allegations had been handed over to the state agency. The counsel replied that the details would be provided if the state agency sought them. He further alleged that the preliminary inquiry, being conducted by the police and not the vigilance department, was intended only to prolong the proceedings. He also argued that constituting an SIT without a cabinet decision was improper, contending that a govt secretary could not act in such a manner without a cabinet decision when a vigilance department was already in place. Supporting the petitioner, the ED also submitted that when an investigating agency receives credible information from another agency, it must register an FIR, which is a fundamental step in a criminal investigation. Advocate general K Jaju Babu appeared for the state govt and vehemently opposed the petition, including on the ground of maintainability. He argued that the petition was premature. However, the petitioner replied that a day after he filed the complaint, the state govt issued an order for a preliminary police inquiry instead of registering a case, prompting him to approach the court. Court criticises SIT member
During the hearing on Tuesday, the court orally said that the only material in the case was a diary and that, if it was the only material available, it might not provide a basis for registering a crime, thereby avoiding a preliminary inquiry.
the court orally commented that a member of the SIT did not even know how to interpret the penal provisions of the PC Act While considering the petition. The petitioner also questioned the capability of the SIT.
It added that, in a genuine case, he had applied the wrong provision, for which the court had made certain observations against him six months earlier.