Gold and dollar smuggling circumstances: No further action on second FIR till April 8, Kerala govt. assures High Court
[ad_1]
Petition challenges classes courtroom order letting Crime Branch query Sandeep Nair
The State authorities on Wednesday assured the High Court that no further steps can be taken till April 8 with respect to the investigation into the second FIR registered towards sure unnamed officers of the Enforcement Director, Kochi, on the idea of a criticism by Sandeep Nair, one of many accused within the diplomatic gold and dollar smuggling circumstances.
The assurance was given to Justice V.G. Arun when a brand new petition moved by P. Radhakrishnan, Deputy Director, ED, Kochi towards the registration of the second FIR primarily based on a criticism from Mr. Nair, got here up for listening to. The petition additionally challenged a classes courtroom order permitting the Crime Branch to query and report the assertion of Mr. Nair on the Central Prison in Thiruvananthapuram.
Same allegations
When the petition was taken up for listening to, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India showing for the petitioner, sought to remain the investigation into the second FIR, arguing that it contained the identical allegations that had been levelled within the first FIR lodged towards the ED officers on the idea of a criticism from the 2 girls cops. The second FIR was a part of the primary FIR.
Opposing the plea for a keep on the investigation, Senior Public Prosecutor Suman Chakaravarthy submitted that the FIR was fairly totally different from the primary one and that they had been on no account linked with one another. The info and occasions within the two FIRs had been totally different. The prosecutor additionally submitted that the Crime Branch would make any seizure or arrest.
Parallel probe
The courtroom orally noticed that the authorized points in each circumstances had been the identical and subsequently the courtroom felt that the investigation ought to be deferred. There needed to be “some deference to the court” because it was within the midst of listening to the case regarding the primary FIR. In reality, the problem concerned within the circumstances was the legality of the parallel investigations being performed by the 2 investigation businesses, the courtroom added.
The petition identified that there couldn’t be a second FIR and a contemporary investigation into the identical alleged offences or incidents. The registration of the FIR was an abuse of the method of regulation and a transparent try and overreach the proceedings pending earlier than the courtroom.
[ad_2]
