[Breaking] Kerala High Court reserves verdict on ED's plea challenging Kerala Police FIRs in Gold Smuggling case

The Kerala High Court on Friday reserved its judgment in the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) challenge to the validity of the FIRs lodged against unnamed ED officials by the Kerala Police for allegedly coercing Swapna Suresh, the prime accused in the gold smuggling case, to give statements implicating Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the case..After hearing arguments at length, Justice VG Arun reserved judgment while indicating that he may pronounce the verdict on April 16, although the Court would be on summer vacation. .In the meanwhile, the interim order issued earlier and undertaking given to the Court by Kerala Police would continue. .In an order passed last month, the Court had ordered that the State cannot take coercive actions against any of the ED officials or call any official witnesses as part of the investigation till the next date of hearing..[Kerala Gold smuggling] ED, State of Kerala war over jurisdiction, federalism before Kerala High Court.The plea was moved by ED Deputy Director P Radhakrishnan who had approached the Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered by the State Police or in the alternative, to have a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). .Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitors General SV Raju and KM Nataraj argued for the ED and against the FIRs under challenge. Senior Advocate Harin Raval opposed the ED's plea for the State of Kerala..It may be noted that the Kerala Police recently filed a second FIR against the ED on which substantial arguments were made today. Senior Advocate Raval asserted that there was no prohibition to the registration of a separate complaint if the first complaint was registered on insufficient material. ."The two FIRs pertain to different incidents. Accused might be same but not subject matter", he argued. .He added that the ED's petition lacked bona fides and was only filed to prevent the recording of statements in the case..Solicitor General Mehta countered that the course of action adopted by the Kerala Police may lead to a break down of the rule of law."The question is can one investigating agency (Kerala Police) adjudicate whether a witness' statement recorded before judge is right or wrong or whether the witness statement in an audio CD is right or wrong...If this is allowed, it will lead to break down of rule of law in the country.".ASG Raju asserted that the second FIR cannot stand since both FIRs relate to the same conspiracy. He argued,"If there is a wider conspiracy, there can be a second FIR. But you cannot have a second FIR with a narrower conspiracy... If your first case is a larger conspiracy, how can you have a second case with a smaller conspiracy? Unheard of! Sandeep is already there in the (first) FIR. There is no discovery. No discovery, no different version, it is the same thing. Same wine in a different bottle. Not permissible!".He added that if the test of sameness is applied, the second FIR has to go. He further asseted that since Swapna and Sandeep (both co-accused in the gold smuggling case) did not make their complaint to the Magistrate at the initial stages strikes, it strikes at the credibility of the complaint..Both SG Mehta and ASG Raju also relied to the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI to make their case. ASG Raju recounted that the Supreme Court had cut short an attempt made in this case to carve out two conspiracies with respect to the deaths of Sohrabuddin Sheik and Tulsiram Prajapati. "Supreme Court said, you can't make it two conspiracies. This is exactly the same case as our case. Here it was one Swapna and Sandeep. There it was Soharabuddin and Prajapathi... Identical to our case...", Raju argued. .ASG M Nataraj focused his arguments on the offences cited in the FIRs under challenge, asserting that they were not applicable to the case at hand or that their invocation was without jurisdiction. "Nothing remains, the entire case is zero. I am not touching on facts. There is a total statutory bar for the police to proceed with this case", ASG Nataraj said. .Before the hearing wrapped up for the day, Advocate TA Unnikrishnan, appearing for the ED, also informed the Court that a reply has been filed before the Special Court to the letter from Sandeep, which had been treated as a petition.