Gold Smuggling Case: Kerala High Court dismisses plea seeking time-bound probe into alleged involvement CM Pinarayi Vijayan, other officials

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking directions to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Custom Department (Customs) to conduct a fair and time bound investigation into the 2020 Kerala Gold Smuggling case by also taking into account the allegations of involvement of high-ranking political functionaries of the State, including Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. [Aji Krishnan v Union of India & Ors.]..The plea by Aji Krishnan also sought orders for the Court to monitor the probe conducted by the two Central agencies.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the investigation by the two agencies will not be fair and proper.“On an appreciation of the above circumstances, it is evident that even the very apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding the non-conduct of a fair and proper investigation is without any basis. The Customs as well as the Enforcement Directorate, have conducted or are conducting proper investigations. There are also no reasons to assume that if the involvement of any person is revealed in the investigation, they will not be proceeded against. For, the dictum “Be you ever so high, the law is above you” applies with equal vigour to all, irrespective of status or position,” the Court said..The gold smuggling case dates back to July 2020, when pursuant to investigations conducted by various agencies into money laundering, illegal financial transactions and massive gold smuggling through diplomatic channels, suspected offenders were arrested and interrogated in Kerala.The National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed a charge-sheet against 20 persons accused in the case, including Sarith PS and Swapna Suresh, under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.The offences registered by the NIA and Customs were scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)..In the present case, the petitioner contended there was no serious investigation conducted even though Suresh made various revelations in her statement regarding the involvement of several persons holding constitutional posts in the State.The petitioner further contended that the Customs didn’t take any action even after Suresh at various press conferences and in interviews, spoke about the alleged involvement of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan..Advocate General of Kerala , Senior Advocate K Gopalakrishna Kurup assisted by Public Prosecutor P Narayanan objected to the maintainability of the petition.The Court said that the present petition was liable to be dismissed as there were already two judgments (Michael Varghese v. Honourable Pinarayi Vijayan, Chief Minister of Kerala and Others) passed by the division bench dismissing similar petitions. “In view of the earlier judgments referred to above, I am of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General has merit, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed,” the Court said.However, it added that it must be circumspect before denying relief on the basis of technicalities..The Standing Counsel for the Customs Department submitted that based on show-cause notice, where a reference is made to the involvement of high constitutional functionaries, the Customs had questioned the witnesses and later filed two complaints.Hence, the Court opined that a direction to conduct a further investigation into the involvement of other persons was not necessary unless there were exceptional circumstances..The Central Government Counsel also submitted that, pursuant to the revelation of gold smuggling, a case had been registered, and few persons have already been arrested.It was also submitted that prosecution has also been initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.In view of the above, the Court dismissed the petition..The petitioner was represented by advocate Shajahan KM.The respondents were represented by advocates S Manu (Deputy Solicitor General of India), PG Jayashanker (Standing Counsel), P Narayanan (Additional Public Prosecutor), V Manu (Senior Government Pleader) and Senior Advocate K Gopalakrishna Kurup (Advocate General)..[Read Judgment]