New Delhi: The Kerala High Court Friday asked the state’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against CPI(M) leader and former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter and son-in-law based on material the Enforcement Directorate shared with the police in relation to the CMRL-Exalogic Solutions “corruption” case.
The order came on the back of a writ petition filed by lawyer-activist KM Shajahan who challenged the Congress government’s decision to launch a preliminary enquiry by an SIT, led by a crime branch Additional Director General of Police to examine the materials provided by the ED.
The petitioner urged the court to order a probe by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), rather than conducting an enquiry. The plea also demanded registration of an FIR against Vijayan, Veena and her husband PA Muhammad Riyas, who was a minister in the Vijayan cabinet.
Justice A Badharudeen allowed the plea. He also declared the SIT ordered by the Kerala government illegal, and set it aside. In his order, the judge observed that materials provided under the PMLA are enough for the purpose of registering an FIR, and no preliminary enquiry was needed to collect more material.
“Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, no further enquiry is required in the instant case and the matters disclosed in the information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA make it obligatory for the State Police to register the FIR, ruling out the scope of any other enquiry,” he further observed.
“Consequently, the 3rd respondent, the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, is specifically directed to register FIR based on the information furnished under Section 66(2) of the PMLA for the offences disclosed therein under the PC Act, against the suspected persons specifically mentioned therein, forthwith, without any delay, and to investigate the allegations through competent officers of the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau and file the final report, without much delay,” the judge said.
The central agency had widened its probe into the CMRL-Exalogic case, turning the spotlight from Vijayan’s daughter Veena T to himself, calling him the ultimate beneficiary of the money allegedly routed from Kochi-based Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) to Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd, a now-defunct one-person company owned by Veena.
“The verification of the bank statements shows that T Veena and her company received a total of Rs 3.28 crore from CMRL. The investigation shows that the amounts were received without any services being rendered. The amounts received are nothing but bribe payments received on behalf of her father, P Vijayan,” the ED said in its communication to Kerala DGP Ravada Azad Chandrasekhar earlier this month.
The fresh criminal case against them and their associates is an offshoot of a money-laundering probe launched following a Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) inquiry into CMRL’s alleged corrupt practices.
In its complaint filed before a court in Kerala, the SFIO alleged that CMRL incurred fictitious cash expenses of Rs 182 crore over 15 years, which were allegedly used to bribe various persons. One such expense was the payment of Rs 2.78 crore to Veena’s one-person company, Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, allegedly in the guise of IT consultancy services.
However, in its letter to the state police, the ED claimed that it had unearthed facts beyond the scope of the SFIO probe, which was limited to corporate fraud and did not cover offences involving the collection of bribes by public servants—which fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“While the existing investigations relate to corporate fraud and siphoning of funds from a public company based on the predicate offence filed by SFIO, there are other offences found to be made out during the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) investigations which are not covered by the existing predicate offence.
“Many amounts are received by public servants for favouring CMRL as bribes, and the same constitutes a separate offence for which a separate predicate offence needs to be registered,” the ED said in its communication.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also read: Managed Rs 20 cr, way beyond income: ED’s fresh allegations against Pinarayi’s daughter Veena