CMRL-Exalogic case: SP Vikraman to head 9-member SIT, Cyber sleuths to aid probe

Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala State Police Chief Ravada A Chandrasekhar on Wednesday constituted a nine-member special investigation team (SIT) of the Crime Branch to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the alleged financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, the now defunct company of Veena T, daughter of Opposition Leader and former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

The move follows the state government's decision to investigate the matter after seeking the Advocate General's legal opinion on the Enforcement Directorate's communication to the State Police Chief.

The SIT, headed by Vikraman P, SP, Crime Branch, Kozhikode, comprises of Benny K V, DySP, Crime Branch, Ernakulam Range; Pradeep Kumar S M, DySP, Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram; Biju N, DySP, Crime Branch headquarters; Binoj S, Inspector of Police, Cyber Fraud and Social Media, Cyber Operations; Biju Lal K, Detective Inspector, Crime Branch CU-I; Manoj Kumar T D, Detective Inspector-III, Crime Branch, Kozhikode; Sharon CS, Detective Inspector-IV, Crime Branch, Kozhikode; and Krishnan Potty K G, Inspector of Police, DHQ, Thiruvananthapuram City.

According to the order, the team will be assisted by Ankit Asokan, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Cyber Operations, in matters related to cyber investigations.

The order also states that the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch, can co-opt other officers or personnel into the team as may be considered necessary for an effective and sustained inquiry.

Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said two legal aspects were considered before the government decided to proceed with the inquiry.

First, he said, the ED has the right to forward information to a law enforcement agency under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which requires it to furnish the information it has collected to a law enforcement agency. Chennithala said the government could not ignore such a communication in view of a Supreme Court judgment.

The second issue concerned the procedure to be followed before registering an FIR. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh, Chennithala said a preliminary inquiry could be conducted before registration of an FIR to determine whether the information disclosed a cognisable offence warranting investigation.

The Advocate General had also advised that a preliminary verification could be conducted before proceeding with an inquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The government subsequently decided to proceed with a preliminary Crime Branch inquiry.

The ED had recommended that a case be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on material gathered during its investigation into the CMRL-Exalogic transactions. The agency has alleged that CMRL paid about ₹2.78 crore to Exalogic, purportedly for IT consultancy services, and has alleged that the payments formed part of a larger bribery arrangement. These are allegations made by the agency and have not been established through a judicial process.

The ED has also sought action against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena, P A Mohammed Riyas and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on material gathered during its money laundering investigation. The agency's communication to the State Police Chief contained findings relating to the alleged financial transactions and other material collected during the probe. Vijayan has rejected the ED's allegations and described the agency's action as politically motivated.