The Kerala High Court has rejected pleas by former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his family members and other accused seeking permission to appeal against an earlier order directing the registration of FIRs in the alleged CMRL-Exalogic payoff case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A division bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John dismissed the applications and appeals on Thursday. The order means the accused cannot challenge the single-bench order as a matter of right, although they can approach the Supreme Court against the division bench decision.
The applicants had argued that the single bench passed its order without hearing them because they were not parties to the original petition. The division bench rejected that contention, holding that an accused does not have a legal right to be heard before an FIR is registered in a corruption case.
The court also held that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory when information supplied under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is accompanied by sufficient material disclosing a cognisable offence. It referred to Supreme Court decisions stating that an accused public servant has no right to be heard before registration of an FIR.
The case concerns Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, his son-in-law and former minister P A Mohamed Riyas, along with other accused. The Enforcement Directorate had recommended action to the state police chief under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, seeking registration of a vigilance case in connection with alleged payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd, or CMRL.
According to the report, the ED alleged that CMRL paid Rs 3.28 crore to Veena’s now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, describing the payments as IT consultancy fees. The allegation remains part of the case proceedings and has not been established through a final finding in the material supplied.
Instead of immediately registering a case, the state government had constituted a special investigation team to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the ED’s recommendation. Political activist K M Shajahan then approached the High Court, which set aside the government order creating the SIT and directed the vigilance director to register an FIR.
The applicants subsequently moved the division bench, leading to the latest order. The bench noted the state government’s submission that two vigilance cases had already been registered in compliance with the single-bench direction.
The division bench also stated that a preliminary inquiry may be dispensed with when a senior officer receives a detailed and well-reasoned source information report that prima facie discloses a cognisable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused may separately seek to have the FIRs quashed by filing appropriate petitions, while a challenge to Thursday’s order remains possible before the Supreme Court.
