CMRL case: HC relief for ex-Kerala CM

In a relief to former Keralam Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his kin, the Kerala High Court on Monday stayed a single-judge order directing the registration of an FIR against them in the alleged CMRL bribery case.

A bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John also kept in abeyance the FIRs registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and the probe by the agency in the cases till further orders on the appeals filed by Vijayan and others against the single-judge order.

The bench also admitted their appeals against the single-judge order, saying the matter requires detailed consideration and listed the matter for hearing after four weeks.

The order came on the appeals moved by Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband PA Mohamed Riyas challenging the single judge’s October 9 direction to the VACB to lodge an FIR against them based on a report given by the ED in connection with the alleged CMRL bribery case.

Senior advocate N Hariharan, representing Veena and Riyas, contended that the information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) does not constitute a cognizable offence or an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“We (appellants) were not heard. If we were heard, we would have shown no cognizable offence is made out. But the single judge proceeded ex parte behind our back,” he argued. He further argued that the petitioner, who moved the High Court seeking registration of FIR, ought to have pursued his complaint for registering a case against Vijayan and others by approaching the Sessions Court.

“If he had done so, then the Sessions Court would have called us to seek our opinion. To avoid that, he moved a writ petition in the High Court,” the senior advocate contended. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Vijayan, claimed that an FIR cannot be registered just because the ED says an offence is made out.

Hariharan and Luthra argued that the transactions between Veena and Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) were being investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and therefore, no other agency, including the ED, could have probed the same issue.

Luthra also contended that when hearing a third party — the petitioner before the single judge — the High Court ought to have heard Vijayan and others prior to issuing the direction to register an FIR.