Kerala Advocate General Advises FIR Against Pinarayi, Veena, Riyas in Pay-off Case

The Advocate General of Kerala has advised the State government to accept a report filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in the CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case and to register a first information report (FIR) against all those named in it, according to official sources. Those named reportedly include former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, her husband P.A. Mohamed Riyas and a few others.

The advice, attributed to Advocate General K. Jaju Babu, is understood to also recommend invoking provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No FIR has been registered so far, and the State government has not formally placed the recommendation in the public domain.

According to sources, the ED submitted its report to the State Police Chief last week, seeking further action. The investigation agency is said to have concluded that the individuals named were involved in money laundering along with Sasidharan Kartha, the managing director of Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited, and his associates.

The ED shared the information with the State police by invoking Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The provision states that if the Director is of the opinion that the provisions of any other law in force have been contravened, the Director shall share the information with the agency concerned for necessary action. Sources said that under this provision, read with principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the police are legally bound to accept the report and proceed to register an FIR.

A final call on the follow-up action is expected after a meeting between the Advocate General and Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan. The Advocate General had earlier sought reports from the Additional Advocate General and the Director General of Prosecution on various aspects of the case, sources indicated.

The case traces back to a diary that surfaced noting payments allegedly made by Mr. Kartha. After the diary came to light, a few political leaders, including State Ministers, acknowledged that they had received funds from him. They described the payments as money collected from an industrialist for their respective political parties. A section of political leaders had also demanded a probe into the funds received by these leaders.

In a development relevant to the case, it emerged over the past few days that Mr. Kartha and the former Chief Financial Officer of CMRL have retracted the statements they gave to the ED, which had formed the basis of the investigation. Both have alleged that the ED pressured them into giving false evidence against politicians.

It is important to note what an FIR does and does not mean. Registration of an FIR marks the start of a police investigation. It is not a finding of guilt, and no person named in the ED report has been convicted by any court in this matter. Every individual named is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to present their version during the investigation and any subsequent trial.

The matter is being followed closely because it involves a former Chief Minister and members of his family, alongside allegations of coercion made against a central investigating agency. How the State government and the police proceed from here, and how the courts assess both the ED's findings and the retractions, will shape the next stage of the case.