KOCHI: Putting a temporary halt to further proceedings in the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) pay-off case, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed that status quo be maintained for two months.
The interim order was issued by Justice TR Ravi while considering a petition filed by CMRL challenging the Additional Sessions Court’s acceptance of a chargesheet filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
CMRL’s counsel submitted that the SFIO had filed a chargesheet in the case, and the Ernakulam Additional Sessions Court took cognisance of the offence without hearing the accused. He referred to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which states that no cognisance shall be taken by a magistrate without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard. He further argued that, under Section 226, the chargesheet should be dismissed for not adhering to the directives under Section 223.
ARL Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union government, opposed the petition. He contended that the case falls under the Companies Act, special legislation, and thus is not subject to BNSS procedures.
He also pointed out that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs authorised an investigation on January 12, 2024, and the SFIO was appointed on January 31, 2024—both dates preceding the BNSS’s commencement on July 1, 2024. Therefore, he argued, the proceedings must be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
However, CMRL’s counsel refuted this, stating that BNSS should apply to cases where court procedures commenced after July 1, 2024. Since only the investigation began before BNSS came into force, and the cognisance was taken post-BNSS, the new law should govern the procedure.
The court observed that the petition raised significant legal questions with wider ramifications, particularly regarding the applicability of BNSS. Justice Ravi noted that the core issue relates to whether the cognisance taken by the Sessions Court was valid under the current legal framework.
Sundaresan requested the court not to stay the proceedings but instead direct the Additional Sessions Court to adjourn further steps, including the issuance of summons. However, CMRL sought a formal stay order.
After considering both sides, the court directed the ASGI to file a detailed report and ordered that status quo be maintained for two months. The matter will be heard in detail after the High Court’s summer vacation.