By P. Sreekumaran
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Keralam Government has taken a politically significant decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the corruption allegations against Leader of the Opposition (LoP) and former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, son-in-law Mohammed Riyas and others in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case.
The decision to initiate a probe was taken on the advice of Advocate General (AG) K. Jaju Babu that the Government can accept the report of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has accused Pinarayi, Veena, Riyas and a few others of engaging in money-laundering, and register a First Information Report (FIR) in the case.
The ED had submitted a report to state police chief Ravada A. Chandrasekhar a few days back seeking to initiate action in the case. The agency had reportedly arrived at the conclusion that Pinarayi, Veena and Riyas were involved in money laundering in association with Sasidharan Kartha, the MD of Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and his associates.
The AG has apparently recommended that the FIR be registered against those named in the report and that the Prevention of Corruption Act be invoked. The police is legally bound to accept the report under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, and register the FIR, in the wake of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Chandrasekhar told presspersons that the police would initially conduct a preliminary inquiry based on the communication of the ED. A vigilance enquiry would not be initiated at the present stage and that the police would first examine the evidence provided by the ED, he said, adding that a preliminary probe was necessary to determine whether a criminal case could be registered.
On his part, Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan defended the inquiry by saying that the Government’s intention was not to target or take revenge against anyone. The Government sought advice. The AG as well as the Director General of Prosecution were of the opinion that a probe can be ordered. The Supreme Court had ordered in the Lalitha Kumari versus the State of Uttar Pradesh case in 2013 that registering an FIR in a suspected commercial fraud or corruption case depends on whether the mandatory preliminary probe reveals a cognizable offence. All of these processes have been followed, he added.
Meanwhile, the CPI(M) has dared the state government to investigate the Ministers allegedly named by acronyms in the ‘slush fund ledger’ supposedly maintained by the CMRL. CPI(M) State Secretary M. V. Govindan said that the Income Tax Department’s original case against the CMRL was that the publicly listed public limited company had incurred a loss Rs 152 crore from the suspected payoff to a galaxy of politicians, including ministers in the current UDF government.
LoP Pinarayi Vijayan had categorically stated that the initials PV in the CMRL’s accounts book were not a reference to him. In contrast, the incumbent Home Minister and Industries Minister had publicly acknowledged that they had accepted election funds from the CMRL. However, the ED has no case against the UDF Ministers. And it has not demanded that the state police launch a criminal inquiry into the political pay-offs. Instead, the ED had built a false case against the CPI(M) leaders based on the now-retracted statements obtained from the CMRL management under duress. The UDF Government is playing second fiddle to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-controlled central agency as part of its understanding with the BJP during the Assembly elections.
CPI(M) leader P. Rajeeve has accused Satheesan of aiding the political interests of the BJP by ordering a police probe into the controversy. He alleged that the CM was preparing the ground for the BJP to make political gains in the state by trying to weaken the CPI(M).
The ED had charged that the CMRL, a chemical company in which the Keralam Government has a minority stake, had camouflaged backhanders to Pinarayi when he was Chief Minister, as retainers to Veena’s now-defunct software firm Exalogic Solutions during 2017-2021 for consultancy services allegedly not provided.
In its report to the State DGP, the ED had stated that it had seized a diary detailing the allegedly illicit financial transactions during a raid at Pinarayi’s house in Thiruvananthapuram in May.
Pinarayi had challenged the existence of any incriminating entries in the diary. As for Riyas, he has maintained that the diary contained scribblings about Veena’s business plans in Gulf, which he claimed had not materialised so far.
The CPI(M) has maintained that the ED’s act was aimed at discrediting the top CPI(M) leaders. It was only recycling old allegations which have been dismissed by the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. Keralam Government should have acted like the Governments of Punjab and Tamil Nadu had which had rejected the ED plea to the state police chiefs to register cases against the top opposition leaders. Since the allegations have been dismissed by the top court, the case against Pinarayi, Veena and Riyas won’t stand legal scrutiny. That is the burden of the CPI(M) leaders’ contention. (IPA Service)
