KOCHI: A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Monday stayed a single judge’s order directing the registration of an FIR against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and son-in-law PA Muhammed Riyas in the CMRL–Exalogic payoff case.
The bench, comprising Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John, also kept in abeyance the FIRs registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and further investigation by the agency until the appeals are disposed of.
The court admitted the appeals filed by Vijayan, Veena and Riyas challenging the single judge’s order, observing that the matter required detailed consideration. It posted the next hearing for November 25.
The state government told the court that it disagreed with the single judge’s direction to the VACB to register an FIR. However, since an FIR had already been registered, there was no need for the court to interfere with it at this stage, Advocate General (AG) Jaju Babu submitted.
The AG said the government had received information from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and subsequently decided to conduct a preliminary inquiry. It also constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine all aspects of the matter. However, a writ petition was filed challenging the decision.
“Somebody diverted the investigation that we started,” he said.
The government had opted for a preliminary inquiry as a precautionary measure, the AG said. However, it respected the single judge’s finding that the documents disclosed the commission of an offence. “We didn’t challenge the decision for this reason,” he submitted.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the appellants, argued that the single judge had passed the order without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.
The single judge had directed the registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the appellants and others, based on information forwarded by the ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
In his appeal, Vijayan argued that the information provided by the ED did not allege that he had demanded or accepted anything from anyone. Nor did it state that any money had been paid or delivered to him, or to anyone on his behalf, at his instance or with his knowledge.
He further contended that the portions of the ED’s information reproduced in the single judge’s judgment contained no statement from any person alleging such transactions. The payments in question were alleged payments by CMRL to a private consultant and her company, which could not be treated as gratification paid to him, his petition stated.
The appellants also argued that a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR was permissible in corruption cases. They contended that the ED, which functions under the Department of Revenue in the Union Finance Ministry, could not dictate when or how the state police should register an FIR.
The appeals further stated that no constitutional provision empowered the Union government to issue such directions through the ED and that the agency’s action violated the federal structure.
