The Kerala High Court has set aside an earlier order of the Magistrate Court at Ranni that had refused to grant the Enforcement Directorate a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) and the First Information Statement (FIS) from the high-profile Sabarimala gold-theft investigation. The ED’s application had been dismissed on the basis that the matter was under close supervision of the High Court, and the Magistrate believed that releasing copies could jeopardize the sensitivity and confidentiality of the ongoing probe.
On ED’s appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court — comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K. V. Jayakumar — found that the earlier order was unsustainable in law. The bench observed that there was no general embargo imposed on applications under Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which governs the grant of copies of any proceedings or documents by a person not party to the case. The Court clarified that ED, being a statutory agency empowered to investigate offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), could request the records — but only after first making a proper application. The Court noted that in its earlier plea, the ED had failed to include any specific averments indicating that the alleged offence had resulted in “proceeds of crime,” which is a necessary threshold under PMLA to justify invocation of its jurisdiction. As such, the earlier application was deemed legally deficient and incapable of consideration in that form.
Rather than refusing altogether, the High Court permitted the ED to file a fresh application before the Magistrate, properly verified and specifying the purpose for which the FIR/FIS copies are sought. If such an application is filed, the Magistrate is directed to examine it on its merits and may grant the copies after hearing the State and passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Thus, the High Court’s order does not grant automatic access to ED, but ensures that ED can seek access subject to compliance with procedural and substantive prerequisites under PMLA and the criminal rules of practice. The decision aims to balance the need for confidentiality in a sensitive temple-theft investigation with the statutory mandate of the ED to investigate money-laundering offences arising out of predicate crimes.
The case is listed as Crl.M.C. No. 10327/2025, titled “Enforcement Directorate v. State of Kerala.”
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.