Kerala HC extends status quo on SFIO report in CMRL case
The Kerala High Court has extended by four months its interim order directing status quo of proceedings before the special court on a report filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), a company based in Kochi accused of financial fraud.
This followed a petition filed by the CMRL challenging the special court's order that took cognisance of the SFIO report and issued summons to the accused, including T. Veena, daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. Along with extending the interim order, the court adjourned the matter with a directive to complete serving of notice on the respondents.
The CMRL's contention is that it had not been granted an opportunity for a pre-cognisance hearing under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). But the Centre and the SFIO maintained that the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) will govern the proceedings, as the BNSS came into effect only on July 1, 2024 and the investigation had commenced prior to that.
The special court had found sufficient ground to take cognisance of the offences and issued process against these persons for offences under relevant provisions of the Companies Act, following which the CMRL challenged the proceedings, citing denial of a pre-cognisance hearing.
The SFIO had filed a complaint under the Companies Act before the special court, Ernakulam, alleging that the CMRL was involved in fraudulent transactions of ₹182 crore. On April 11, the had court arrayed Sasidharan Kartha, his son, Saran Kartha, and Ms. Veena and their respective firms as accused in the case.
Ms. Veena had been named for allegedly receiving ₹2.73 crore from the company without rendering any services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
CMRL holds trial run on Corridor 4 under Phase 2
CHENNAI: CMRL has begun simultaneous trial runs on both up and down lines of Corridor 4's 9.5km viaduct from Porur junction to Poonamallee bypass as part of its Rs 63,000 crore Phase 2 expansion project. The dual-line trial, which commenced on Friday, signals progress toward the targeted December 2025 launch. Six driverless trains, manufactured by Alstom, will operate on this stretch under unattended train operations, with manual supervision for the first five to six months. 'We are focused on a gradual transition to ensure stability and safety,' said MA Siddique, CMRL MD. The 10-station elevated stretch had earlier seen phased testing on the 3km upline between Mullaithottam and Poonamallee and a 9.1km segment from Porur to Poonamallee. Friday's downline test marked the first full-directional run, with Poonamallee depot serving as the operations hub during commissioning.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Piyush Jain case: Court dismisses accused application, hearing on July 4
1 2 Kanpur: Special chief judicial magistrate Kanpur Nagar Kumud Lata Tripathi on Friday dismissed the application of accused Piyush Jain and Sunil A Hirani in the much-publicised case in which the GST department had recovered approximately Rs 195 crore cash and gold bars weighing around 22 kgs. The DGGI Ahmedabad had raided perfume trader Piyush Jain's houses situated at Anandpuri Kanpur and Kannauj on December 21, 2021. The department had seized Rs 196 crore in cash and 23 kg gold from his possession. Piyush was ultimately arrested on December 27, 2021. He was bailed out after about eight months. The prosecution had made thirteen other persons accused apart from Piyush. All are currently on bail. Both accused had previously applied for the case diary and other documents as per provisions of the Cr PC which was strongly opposed by the prosecution. According to Ambrish Tandon, special prosecutor for DGGI Ahmedabad, the accused applicants pressed their demand on last date while he submitted that CD/DVD containing 479 to 11,455 pages of the charge sheet had already been provided to the counsel of Sunil A Hirani and the same had also been provided to Piyush Jain on October 20, 2023. Both had acknowledged receipt on the order sheet of the case file present in the court. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Hamburg: GEERS sucht 700 Testhörer für Hörgeräte ohne Zuzahlung GEERS Undo He stated that since copies of the documents had already been furnished by the court, it appears that this application had been filed only to delay proceedings. Therefore, the court should dismiss the application of Hirani and Piyush Jain. The court, which had reserved its order on the previous date, delivered the verdict and dismissed the accused applicants' plea. The magistrate in her order observed that since all documents had already been delivered by the prosecution to the accused, there was no reason to deliver them again. The application was viewed as a tactic to delay the trial and thus was dismissed. The next date was fixed as July 4 for hearing. Tandon informed that the prosecution would now present its evidence. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
'Victims' can challenge acquittal under Sec 372 CrPC: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Referring to provision of Section 372 of CrPC which was amended in 2009 on recommendation of Law Commission to allow a victim to file appeal, Supreme Court has held that a "victim" of an offence like in cheque bouncing cases has the right to challenge the order of acquittal of the accused under CrPC and corresponding Section 413 of BNSS. Differentiating between Sec 372 & Sec 378 (which allows a complainant to file appeal), a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Sharma said Section 378 circumcised the right to file an appeal which is not the case with Section 372. "The proviso to Sec 372 of CrPC was inserted in statute book with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of CrPC, SC said victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition and the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with right of an accused who after being convicted has a right to file an appeal under Section 374 of CrPC. TNN
