The Kerala High Court has rejected pleas by former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, son-in-law and former minister P A Mohamed Riyas, and other accused seeking to challenge an order directing the registration of an FIR in the alleged CMRL-Exalogic payoff case.
A division bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John dismissed their applications seeking permission to appeal against the single bench order, as well as their appeals against it. The applicants had argued that they were not parties to the original petition and had not been heard before the order was passed.
The division bench held that an accused does not have a legal right to be heard before an FIR is registered in a corruption case. It also held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory when information provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is accompanied by sufficient material indicating a cognisable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The ruling leaves the accused unable to appeal against the single bench order as a matter of right. They can still approach the Supreme Court against the division bench decision or file appropriate petitions seeking to quash the FIRs, according to the report.
The case began after the Enforcement Directorate recommended that the state police chief register a vigilance case under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The recommendation concerned allegations that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd, or CMRL, paid Rs 3.28 crore to Veena’s now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, under the guise of IT consultancy services.
Instead of immediately registering a case, the state government constituted a special investigation team to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the Enforcement Directorate’s recommendation. K M Shajahan, a political activist from Thiruvananthapuram, challenged that decision before the High Court.
The single bench subsequently set aside the government order constituting the special investigation team and directed the vigilance director to register an FIR. The accused then moved the division bench, contending that the order had been passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
In rejecting that argument, the division bench relied on several Supreme Court decisions concerning the registration of FIRs against public servants. It also noted that a preliminary inquiry may be dispensed with when a senior officer receives a detailed and reasoned source information report that prima facie discloses a cognisable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court further recorded the state government’s submission that two vigilance cases had already been registered in compliance with the single bench order. The immediate legal options available to the applicants are a challenge before the Supreme Court or petitions seeking quashing of the FIRs.
