NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice in a plea by the Enforcement Directorate seeking to transfer the trial of sensational gold smuggling case from Kerala to Bengaluru.
The case relates to smuggling of gold through diplomatic channels. One among the accused is M Sivasankar, an IAS officer of Kerala cadre who was the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala. The other accused persons are PS Sarith, Swapna Suresh and Sandeep Nair.
A bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice SR Bhat while asking the Kerala government to file its response in ED’s plea posted the petition for next Wednesday. The court also issued notice to M Sivasankar, a senior IAS officer also named in the case.
Seeking transfer, the ED contended that there had been concentrated efforts by the state machinery to thwart and derail the investigation under PMLA. Another ground on which transfer was sought by the central agency was that the state machinery was interfering with the probe at every stage.
“If the trial is continued in the state, the highly influential accused persons will create hurdles and also the co-accused would be pressurised and threatened to make false allegations and to make false evidence thereby derail the ongoing investigation and trial,” ED’s application had stated.
Before the SC, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday argued that the accused, Swapna Suresh was threatened in jail by some persons who were believed to be senior prison officials. Asserting the fact that Swapna was a prime witness, Mehta said that ED apprehended that free and fair trial in the state might not be possible. He further added that several accused were being forced to retract statements made against the bigwigs.
Asserting that transfer will inevitably reflect on the credibility of the Judiciary of Kerala, Kerala government on October 1 had approached SC against the Enforcement Directorate’s plea.
The state contended that ED has not substantiated with evidence that the investigation carried on by them for more than one and half years has been hindered. There has not been a single incident in which investigating officers of ED were prevented from discharging their duties. The application further said,
“They have been freely summoning witnesses and examining them. These include public servants holding important positions. They have all cooperated by appearing before the Investigating Officer. There has not been a single incident of demonstration or public meeting when witnesses appeared before the ED. None other than the Hon’ble CM of the state has assured cooperation of the State in the conduct of the investigation.”