Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Quashes Magistrate Order Denying FIR Copy To ED; Says Fresh Application Must Show Proceeds Of Crime
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (December 03) set aside the Ranni Magistrate court's order denying the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) access to the First Information Report and First Information Statement before the Crime Branch in the Sabarimala gold theft case.
The ED had approached the High Court challenging the order that dismissed its application for issuance of certified copies of the FIR and FIS.
The Magistrate had dismissed ED's plea observing that the High Court is monitoring the investigation in the high-profile case and had directed the Investigating Agency to conduct the probe in a discreet manner; thus considering its sensitive nature, the application could not be entertained.
According to the ED, since the Crime Branch had already registered offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and these offences being predicate/scheduled offences, ED is the competent statutory authority to investigate into offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that in the ED's application before the Magistrate, there was no mention regarding "proceeds of crime", which was necessary to invoke jurisdiction under PMLA.
"Jurisdiction under the PMLA commences only when the predicate offence has resulted in "proceeds of crime". The Enforcement Directorate must have credible material to believe that such proceeds exist. We are of the view that in the absence of such foundational averments, the application was deficient and incapable of consideration in its present form."
Going to the question whether the Magistrate was justified in denying the application, the Court remarked that it had not placed any restriction in considering an application under Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which states that applications for the grant of copies of any proceedings or documents by a stranger to the proceeding shall be allowed only by order of the Court obtained on a petition duly verified setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required.
"We have not, at any point, imposed any embargo on the Magistrate considering an application in accordance with the provisions of the PMLA or Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice," the Court observed.
However, since the ED's dismissed application was not sufficient, the Court felt it appropriate that a fresh application be made. Taking into consideration the State's submission that it also may be heard while the Magistrate considers the new application, the Court added:
"It would be open to the Enforcement Directorate to file a fresh application before the learned Magistrate setting forth the exact purpose for which the copy is required. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered on its merits, and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after hearing the State as well."
Thus, the Court disposed of the petition.
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 10327/ 2025
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 796
Counsel for the petitioner: Jaisankar V. Nair - SC - ED
Counsel for the respondent: T.A. Shaji - Director General of Prosecution, P. Narayanan - Special Government Pleader, S. Rajmohan - Sr. GP