CMRL-Exalogic case: Kerala HC reserves verdict on plea seeking FIR against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena, Riyas

Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a plea seeking registration of an FIR against Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Vijayan and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas, a former State Minister and presently a CPI(M) legislator, in the CMRL-Exalogic case.

Justice A. Badharudeen reserved the verdict after hearing detailed arguments in the case.

The case relates to allegations of financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and Veena's company, Exalogic Solutions.

The ED had gathered the material during its investigation into the alleged transactions.

The plea was filed by advocate K.M. Shahjahan, seeking a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on information furnished by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The state government opposed the plea. It said an FIR could not be registered without a preliminary inquiry into the allegations.

The Advocate General said the main material relied upon by the ED was a diary. An FIR could not be registered solely on the basis of a diary, he argued.

The government also maintained that the plea was not maintainable and that a preliminary inquiry was necessary before registering a case.

The court pointed out that the ED had submitted statements along with the other material.

The ED produced before the court a letter sent to the Director General of Police recommending registration of a case against Vijayan and Riyas.

It also submitted material, including statements recorded during its inquiry.

The court asked whether the statements had been given to the government.

The ED said complete copies of the statements had not been handed over.

The agency said the information contained in its letter was sufficient to register a case.

It also said it was ready to provide copies of the statements if the police required them.

The ED reiterated that a case should be registered on the basis of the material submitted by it.

The government argued that the ED was not an investigating agency like the police and that its role was limited to collecting information and taking further action within its jurisdiction.

The court, however, observed that the ED was an investigating agency.

The High Court has now reserved its verdict on whether the state police should register an FIR without a preliminary inquiry.

An SIT has already been formed by the Satheesan government based on the ED letter to the State Police chief.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IANS

[email protected]