CMRL-Exalogic payoff case: ED affirms offence found during probe under PMLA Act warrants investigation by State police
You donβt have any Active Subscription.
Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription
The ED, on September 7, sent a detailed report to the State Police Chief seeking registration of a separate FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other relevant laws against Mr. Vijayan, Mr. Riyas, and Ms. Veena.Β | Photo Credit: X/@dir_ed
The ED explained to the Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen that, while investigating the offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act), allegedly committed by T. Veena, daughter of Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan and her company, Exalogic, they received information regarding a predicate offence, which would fall under the purview of the State Police. Accordingly, the ED shared the information with the State Police Chief.
The court observed that the ED and the petitioner, lawyer K.M. Shajahan, were unified on the stand that a preliminary enquiry was not required to register an FIR for the investigation of an alleged predicate offence, revealed during the ED probe under the PMLA Act.
Mr. Shajahan had approached the court seeking the registration of an FIR and investigation into allegations of intentional enrichment of former Chief Minister of Kerala and Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan, abetment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and money-laundering by his daughter Veena T. and son-in-law and former PWD Minister Shri Mohammed Riyas.
The ED, on September 7, sent a detailed report to the State Police Chief seeking registration of a separate FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other relevant laws against Mr. Vijayan, Mr. Riyas, and Ms. Veena. The report accused Mr. Vijayan of receiving a bribe of βΉ3.28 crore through his daughter.
The Advocate General, K. Jaju Babu, countered that if the ED was aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the State Police, it should have approached the court, as was apparent from its many cases pending before the court in different matters. Further, he argued that the petition was filed under the guise of public interest, but showed a vested interest in the matter. The petitioner then said there was no possible private interest in PC Act cases.
The court stated that it would consider whether the State Police had the option to conduct a preliminary inquiry before deciding to register an FIR upon receiving information about an offence from the ED under the PMLA. The matter would be posted again next week for a detailed hearing.
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.
