The Kerala High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on an appeal by the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) challenging a single bench order that dismissed its plea seeking to quash proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against them in an alleged case of misappropriation of public funds.
Photo: IANS
The Kerala High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on an appeal by the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) challenging a single bench order that dismissed its plea seeking to quash proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against them in an alleged case of misappropriation of public funds.
A division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar heard detailed arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for the appellants, ASGI, AR L Sundaresan and Zoheb Hossain (Special Counsel) appearing for the ED. The court directed the ED not to take any further action until Friday, when the matter is likely to be listed for the verdict’s pronouncement. The order of no further action applies only to the petitioners; action may still be taken against those who are not parties to the appeal.
Advertisement
Senior Supreme Court advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the appellants, questioned whether PMLA can be invoked by the ED without registering a First Information Report (FIR) or complaint regarding the predicate offence. He said the ED has consistently taken the stand that no predicate offence was registered and that to invoke jurisdiction by any agency, the jurisdictional fact—the existence of the offence—must be present, which is missing in this case.
Advertisement
He further argued that dire consequences would follow if the ED is allowed to proceed with an investigation without the prior registration of a predicate offence case (an FIR for an underlying criminal act that generates illegal proceeds, which may be laundered, triggering the role of the ED).
The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ARL Sundaresan, opposed Luthra’s stance that the central agency cannot step in without a predicate offence FIR.
“The registration of a complaint or crime with the scheduled crime is not necessary for the initiation of an inquiry under PMLA. If the competent authority is holding a probe into a predicate offence which is in the schedule, the ED can kickstart its inquiry or investigation or proceedings… If until the predicate agency completes investigation and files a final report, if our hands are tied till then, we can’t do anything … Their whole case is that there is no scheduled offence. There is a scheduled offence now. If ECIR is quashed now, the position will be that we cannot go ahead even though everything is there… There is no condition that there should be a complaint before a court before we can initiate the proceedings. To collect evidence, we are entitled to issue a summons to collect evidence. Depending on the quality of the evidence we collect, we can proceed,” he said.
Special Counsel for the ED, Zoheb Hossain, also argued that there was no need for a pre-registered scheduled offence case for the ED to conduct an inquiry.
A single bench of the Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of petitions filed by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and its executives, refusing to quash the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation into the high-profile money laundering and bribery case involving former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter Veena Vijayan.
Justice TR Ravi rejected the pleas seeking to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and the central agency’s summons
The case involves a suspected money laundering angle regarding payments worth Rs.1.72 crore made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by Veena Vijayan, daughter of former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, without any verifiable services rendered
Advertisement
