Enforcement Directorate v Kerala Police : Live Updates From Kerala High Court Hearing

Raval : Even before accused is nominated and informed to the jurisdictional magistrate, they have rushed to the court, with all disputed questions of facts.

Raval : On 17th of March the FIR was filed. Within 6 days they have rushed to this Court. From the armour of the Central Government, an litigation has been launched against an FIR which is at a very very nascent stage.

Raval : The affidavit filed by petitioner was in public domain before it reached court. The intention is clear, to tarnish the state than to pursue a legal remedy.

This is on the point of conduct of petitioner.

Raval : The petition does not disclose the source of important case documents of investigation.

Raval : Shockingly, the case documents of the investigation are sought to be used for a private purpose in the petition filed in personal capacity.

Raval : The petition does not disclose it is filed in official capacity. It is nowhere disclosed that it has been authorized by the Enforcement Directorate.

Raval : When cognizable offences are disclosed during the preliminary enquiry, is it not necessary to register FIR? A limited legal opinion was sought from none other than the Director General of Prosecution regarding the issue.

Raval : Based on that, straightaway an FIR could have been registered. The State Police Chief ordered a preliminary enquiry into the alleged audio clip.

Raval : On 20.11.2020, the Joint Director of ED writes to the Kerala Police, and rightly so, about an audio clip being circulated purportedly of an accused in the gold smuggling case. The petitioner, being Dy Director, should have been aware of this.

Raval : Your lordship is aware that an FIR is not meant to be an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case. It is a settled law.

He cites a precedent.