: A special court here on Friday ordered the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to hold a preliminary inquiry into the allegation that its former director, N. Sankar Reddy, had “intervened” in the politically controversial bar licence renewal bribery case to give the suspect, former Finance Minister K.M. Mani, a “clean chit” and the Investigating Officer (IO), R. Sukeshan, SP, was “part of the game.”
A. Badharudeen, Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, said he had heard the complaint, perused the case diary (CD) and “other materials” and found it to be a fit case for a precursory probe to “ascertain the truth of the allegation”.
The judge said internal communications showed that Mr. Reddy had attempted to “negative” (reject) the findings of Mr. Sukeshan, which would have “likely incriminated the accused”.
For instance, Mr. Reddy directed Mr. Sukeshan to “disbelieve” Ambili, a “crucial witness to prove the case on the basis of telephone call details”.
Mr. Reddy had “seriously negatived” Mr. Sukeshan’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Mani had obtained Rs.10 lakh from Raj Kumar Unni (a bar hotelier) at 7 a.m. on April 2, 2014 at his official residence.
Mr. Sukeshan had said that circumstantial evidence was consistent with Mr. Ambili’s statement that he had witnessed the alleged transaction.
He had also said that no evidence was “forthcoming” on the collection of the money.
The judge said that in another communication, Mr. Reddy had “negatived” a finding, which would have “absolutely incriminated” the accused.
Mr. Badharudeen observed that the “remarks (in the CD) are self speaking as to what transpired during the initial and further investigations”.
One remark entered on September 20, 2016 said that Mr. Sukeshan had followed the orders of successive directors as a junior officer.
Mr. Sukeshan first filed a “factual report” in June 2015 stating that there was evidence to charge sheet the case.
He changed tack and filed a final report absolving Mr. Mani of all guilt when the then Vigilance chief, Vinson. M. Paul, asked him to “refer the case”. Mr. Reddy, who succeeded Mr. Paul and supervised the second further investigation in the case, also directed Mr. Sukeshan to “refer the case” and he “obeyed”.
The court observed that the further investigation “was now going on without hindrance”. It had heard the matter at a pre-cognisance stage.
He gave the VACB 45 days time to submit its findings.
