Case against Thomas: final hearing in July

Former CVC had filed PIL seeking to quash case against him

May 11, 2013 11:03 am | Updated November 17, 2021 05:30 am IST - New Delhi

The Supreme Court on Friday posted for final hearing in July a special leave petition filed by P.J. Thomas, former Central Vigilance Commissioner, seeking to quash the Rs. 2.8 crore palmolein import case in which he had been cited as one of the accused. The case is pending before the Special Judge, Thrissur.

A three Judge Bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices Vikaramaji Sen passed this order after hearing counsel for Mr. Thomas, who pleaded for urgency to post the matter for final hearing. The Bench agreed and posted the SLP for final haring in July.

Mr. Thomas submitted that he was innocent and was seriously engaged in discharge of his official duty. He said there was nothing on record to show that he had committed any offence and he was only executing a Cabinet decision as a dutiful civil servant. He said he was subjected to a lot of attacks from vested interests by making use of the media, resulting in a hostile atmosphere.

He said the special leave petition raised important questions of law, viz. whether the High Court was duty-bound to quash the proceedings pending against him in the light of the fact that on June 25, 2007, the Central Vigilance Commissioner also issued an office Memorandum stating that his case had been re-examined and it was observed that he was implementing a Cabinet decision and no loss had been caused to the State Government as alleged and no case is made out against the petitioner and based on this report he was empanelled to the Central government and held various responsible jobs. Also whether the High Court was duty-bound to quash the proceedings pending against him in the light of the fact the continuance of the trial for an alleged action, that too in discharge of his official duty, which happened more than 21 years ago, seriously violated his fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to speedy trial, the right to life, as the pendency of the said criminal proceedings resulting, in preventing him from taking any assignments in government service, and also resulted in serious prejudice to his personal life.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.