CMRL bribery case: SC pauses probe against ex-CM Vijayan for a week

A vacation bench of justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana permitted Vijayan and others to approach the division bench of the Kerala High Court against a single judge order.

New Delhi: In a temporary relief to former Keralam chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 21, stayed for a week the investigation against him, his daughter and her husband in the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) bribery case.

A vacation bench of justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana permitted Vijayan and others to approach the division bench of the Kerala High Court against a single judge order.

The top court was hearing petitions filed by Vijayan and others challenging the high court single judge’s order to direct registration of an FIR on the basis of information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

“We set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioners to pursue the appeal before the division bench. We make it clear that our observations are limited to the issue at hand, that is, the locus of the petitioners to prefer the appeal, and not an expression of opinion on merits.

“To enable the petitioners to pursue the appeal on its merits, we give liberty to the petitioners to pursue the appeal as well as seek interim relief in accordance with law. To enable the petitioners to do so, we direct that the investigation in the impugned First Information Report shall remain stayed for a week,” the bench said.

ED asked not to meddle in statutory domain of other entities

The top court also asked the ED not to meddle into the statutory domain of other entities.

During the hearing, the apex court remarked, “Do your examination under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. File your complaint… You have got a scheduled offence. Go ahead with your prosecution. Don’t extend your hand beyond your statutory limits. We are making your client (ED) very clear. Don’t use the process of statutory powers to meddle into the statutory domain of other entities.”

“We are fully clear about what you have done and what the high court has done. We will maintain the FIR but no investigation until and unless these issues are decided by the appellate court,” Justice Bagchi orally remarked.

The observation came after advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, defended the high court order and argued that the accused had no right to challenge it, as the ED’s information disclosed a cognisable offence.

The top court said it was not questioning the ED’s authority to investigate the alleged hawala transactions or prosecute the money laundering offence.

It, however, emphasised that once the ED had discharged its duty by informing the State of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was for the State to act in accordance with law.

High Court acted in haste: SC

The top court said the high court “acted in haste” and directed registration of an FIR against Vijayan and others.

On October 15, the high court rejected the applications of Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas to file an appeal against the single judge’s October 9 order, while holding that “an accused in a corruption case has no legal right to be heard before registering FIR”.

In their appeals before the high court, the three had claimed that they were not heard by the single judge before issuing the direction to lodge the FIR.

They further claimed before the high court that the petition, in which the single judge passed the October 9 order, was in the form of a public interest litigation (PIL) and therefore, it should have been heard by a division bench that deals with PILs.

The appeals before the high court were moved in the wake of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (VACB) Special Investigation Unit-1 registering two FIRs against Vijayan and his family members in connection with the case.

The high court on October 9 directed the VACB to register a case based on a report submitted by the ED to the state police.

The ED had sought registration of a case based on evidence gathered during its investigation and searches conducted under the PMLA.

The agency has alleged that CMRL made fraudulent payments of Rs 2.78 crore to Veena’s now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, under the guise of IT consultancy services.