The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the police officer who had investigated the bar licence renewal bribery case registered against former Finance Minister K.M. Mani to report what exactly the ground or circumstances on the basis of which further investigation for the second time was sought.
The directive was issued when a petition filed by Mr. Mani challenging the Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Court order allowing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to conduct a further investigation came up for hearing.
The court directed the investigation officer to report as to what went unnoticed at the initial stage, even when a further investigation for the first time was made by the VACB.
The court asked whether the VACB had any reason or ground for a second round of further investigation in a matter closed on two occasions by the VACB on the finding that there was no scope to proceed.
The court directed the investigation officer to file a statement in this regard in two weeks.
Meanwhile, the court dismissed a petition filed by Nobel Mathew seeking to implead himself in the case. Rejecting his plea, the court observed that if every citizen was allowed to “intrude into criminal investigation, or judicial process, it will cause unpleasant consequences in the administration of justice.” The investigation was the exclusive province of the investigation agency to which a third party could not intervene.
In his petition, Mr. Mani said the investigating agency could not conduct a further investigation in a case in which it had filed a final report earlier saying no offence had been made out. The VACB could conduct a further investigation into the offence only if a competent court had quashed the Vigilance court order accepting the final report filed in the case. A de novo investigation or re-investigation could be conducted only on orders of the constitutional courts such as High Court.
The Vigilance court had granted permission for a further probe on a petition filed by Superintendent of Police R. Sukeshan, who had earlier probed the case. Mr. Sukeshan had sought a further investigation on the ground that former Vigilance Director N. Sankar Reddy had intervened in the earlier probe with a view to giving Mr. Mani a clean chit.
The former Finance Minister alleged that the plea for a further investigation had been allowed without looking into whether any fresh materials against the petitioner had emerged or not. In fact, the petition seeking further investigation was filed with the mala fide intention to harass the petitioner by “frivolous and vexatious prosecutions.”
