Kochi, Oct 26: The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed the FIR registered against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and son-in-law and former minister Muhammed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic case, and also stayed further investigation and the judgment of the single judge who had directed the Vigilance to register the case, LiveLaw reported.
Source: LiveLaw
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John admitted the four appeals filed by the three and posted them for final hearing, after hearing senior advocates N. Hariharan, Sidharth Luthra, Gopalakrishna Kurup and T.A. Shaji for the appellants, Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for the State, Additional Solicitor General P. Sreekumar for the Enforcement Directorate and advocate V. Sethunath for the writ petitioner, LiveLaw reported. PTI reports carried the same order as the investigation and the FIR being kept in abeyance.
Source: LiveLaw
The case rests on allegations — not proven findings — that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) paid about Rs 1.72 crore between 2017 and 2020 to Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by Veena, allegedly without corresponding services. The Enforcement Directorate forwarded material suggesting possible offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, after which the State first ordered a preliminary enquiry by a Special Investigation Team.
Source: LiveLaw
On October 9, a single judge held the preliminary-enquiry route illegal in the circumstances, set aside the SIT order and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR. The three were not heard before that order, they contend. A Division Bench first refused them leave to appeal; on October 21 the Supreme Court set that refusal aside, allowed them to appeal before the High Court and temporarily stayed the investigation to let them seek interim relief.
Source: LiveLaw
Arguing for the appellants, senior counsel contended that the writ petitioner, advocate K.M. Shajahan, had bypassed the procedure under Section 175 of the BNSS, that they were not heard by the single judge, and that no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out because the material did not show any money reaching Vijayan or Riyas. The ED, through the ASG, argued that where material discloses a cognizable offence the State must register an FIR and opposed extending the stay. The Advocate General told the court the State had acted with abundant caution in ordering a preliminary enquiry and that the FIR was registered following the single judge's direction.
Source: LiveLaw