CMRL-Exalogic case: Bribery charges stand against Kerala LoP Pinarayi, states legal advice

Kochi: Legal advice has been received stating that bribery charges, among others, will stand against former Chief Minister and current Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan in the CMRL-Exalogic money transaction case. This constitutes an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

The legal opinion also states that an offence under Section 13(1)(b), which is invoked for amassing assets disproportionate to known sources of income, holds ground.

Under these Sections, the government is expected to decide on conducting a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. The Supreme Court had clarified in the Lalita Kumari case that a preliminary inquiry is required before registering an FIR in a Vigilance case.

These details are contained in the legal advice submitted to the government by Advocate General Jaju Babu. This conclusion was reached following discussions with Director General of Prosecution T Asaf Ali.

The legal opinion also mentions that Section 7(2) will apply since CMRL paid money to Pinarayi's daughter, T Veena, for services that were not provided. CMRL founder MD and officials gave statements to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) confirming that the money was paid. This detail is also featured in the Interim Settlement Board's report. This particular Section is invoked for receiving money through a third party.

The burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise rests on the accused. Section 13(1)(b), concerning the possession of disproportionate assets, will apply to Veena's husband and former Cabinet Minister P A Mohammed Riyas. A Vigilance case for giving bribes will also stand against CMRL MD Sasidharan Kartha.

No case against Chennithala and Kunjalikutty

The legal opinion states that a Vigilance case will not hold against Ministers Ramesh Chennithala and P K Kunhalikutty, as there are no adverse statements before the ED or reports other than their names appearing in a diary.

This is based on the Supreme Court ruling in the V C Shukla case, where the apex court clarified that a case cannot be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act merely because a name appears in a diary.