KOCHI: Putting further pressure on Pinarayi Vijayan, the legal opinion of Director General of Prosecution T Asaf Ali in the CMRL payoff case states that after analysing the facts and circumstances of the case shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), it has been “proved beyond doubt” that the former chief minister acquired financial resources amounting to Rs 3.28 crore from Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) through his daughter, Veena T, between March 4, 2017, and May 18, 2019, on the strength of a sham agreement.
The amount was disproportionate to Pinarayi’s known sources of income, stated the opinion, a copy of which is with TNIE. It further stated that both Pinarayi and Veena were liable to be prosecuted under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 16 of 2018).
“Since the period of crime falls prior to and after July 26, 2018, the date on which the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018, came into force, penal provisions applicable before and after the amendment may be suitably invoked,” it stated.
The opinion stated that this is a case in which the receipt of bribe or illegal gratification by Veena for and on behalf of her father, the then CM, was established prima facie through strong oral, documentary and digital evidence, strengthened by the findings of the Interim Settlement Board.
“In such circumstances, it shall be presumed, under Section 20 of the PC Act, that the bribe money was received by Veena illegally for and on behalf of her father,” it stated.
According to the opinion, mere vague or ambiguous explanations are insufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the fact that Veena received Rs 3,28,01,000 from CMRL, an amount not legally due to her.
Riyas also liable to be prosecuted: Legal opinion
To substantiate the finding, the DGP also took into account the statement of CMRL MD S N Sasidharan Kartha recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act on January 26, 2019.
The statement had said: “The vendors have not provided any work, services or any software maintenance or consultancy or any other form of service to our expectations till date. However, monthly payments are being made as per the agreement.”
In view of Kartha’s statement, the opinion stated that it may be presumed that Veena accepted the bribe money to cause improper performance of a public duty through her father, the then CM. Even if bribe money was received by a public servant through a third party, the public servant may be liable for prosecution, the opinion stated.
According to the DGP’s opinion, the bribe money was received by the public servant, then CM Pinarayi Vijayan, through his daughter Veena. It therefore holds that both are liable to be prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The opinion also stated that their acts would attract Section 7(1) and Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act, 1988.
Similarly, CMRL, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, is also held liable for prosecution for allegedly giving bribe to a public servant.
On the involvement of then minister P A Mohamed Riyas, Veena’s husband, the opinion states that his alleged acts would fall under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act, 1988, as amended by Act 16 of 2018. Hence, Riyas is liable to be prosecuted for allegedly possessing financial resources disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The ED alleged that hawala money exceeding Rs 25 crore was illegally transferred to Dubai to establish business establishments and companies. It stated that there was evidence, including chats involving Riyas and his friends, indicating the transfer of hawala money abroad. These matters, according to the DGP’s opinion, fall beyond the purview of the vigilance and police.
However, the opinion states that if a public servant, or any person on his behalf, possesses financial resources and intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office, such conduct constitutes an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of the PC Act.
