KOCHI: The Advocate General (AG) and Director General of Prosecution (DGP) have given a legal opinion clearing the way for further action on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) report seeking registration of a corruption case against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and son-in-law P A Mohamed Riyas in connection with the CMRL payoff case.
The opinion submitted by AG Jaju Babu and DGP Asaf Ali T stated that the ED report can be accepted and that the police can register an FIR if a cognizable offence is made out. The police can also conduct a preliminary inquiry, if necessary, before registering the FIR, it said.
The report of the Additional Advocate General was also considered while giving the opinion. “Police authority is legally bound to accept the report under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and take necessary action in the matter of proceeding with the registration of an FIR, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court,” stated the opinion.
According to the legal opinion, accepting or demanding a bribe through a third party or for the benefit of another person constitutes a punishable offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The law officers also referred to the Income Tax Interim Settlement Board’s finding in August 2023 that Veena and her firm, Exalogic Solutions, had received monthly payments from CMRL without rendering any services. Such payments may attract provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it stated.
Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act may also apply. The provision creates a presumption against a public servant where an undue advantage has been accepted, subject to the prosecution first establishing the basic facts of demand and acceptance, it stated.
The law officers further said that a person who gives or offers a bribe can also be held liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The CMRL–Exalogic case relates to allegation that CMRL paid Rs 2.78 crore to Exalogic Solutions without receiving corresponding services. The ED alleges that the payments were kickbacks and that Veena’s relationship with her father, Pinarayi Vijayan, influenced the payments.