HC orders status quo in wealth case

Case against Manoj Abraham

March 24, 2017 08:00 am | Updated 08:01 am IST - KOCHI

City Police Commissioner Manoj Abraham in Kochi.

City Police Commissioner Manoj Abraham in Kochi.

The Kerala High Court on Thursday ordered that status quo be maintained with respect to the probe into a complaint accusing Manoj Abraham, Inspector General (IG), of amassing wealth disproportionate to his know sources of income.

The court issued the order on a petition filed by Mr. Abraham challenging the Muvattupuzha Vigilance Court order directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau(VACB) to register a case against him on the complaint.

When the petition came up, the prosecutor submitted that no case had been registered as yet on the basis of the complaint.

The Vigilance Court had passed the directive on a petition filed by P.P. Chandrasekharan Nair of Pathanamthitta.

Allegations

He alleged that Mr. Abraham had unholy nexus with the quarry mafia and misused his position to stop action against illegal quarrying in Pathanamthitta.

The officer had also constructed a mansion in Thiruvananthapuram and conducted numerous foreign trips under sponsorship of some businessmen.

He had also alleged irregularities committed by the IG in the purchase of arms for the India Reserve Battalion. It was alleged that Mr. Abraham had invested a substantial portion of his ill-gotten money in St. Mary’s group which was related to his wife.

Mr. Abraham pointed out in his petition that the quick verification conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Cell, Vigilance, Ernakualm, had found that the allegations against the petitioner had not been substantiated by any material.

The Superintendent of Police had not recommended any action against the petitioner.

Officer’s claim

The reasoning arrived by the Vigilance Court to hold that there was prima facie material to register a case for amassing disproportionate assets was erroneous.

Besides, it was impermissible for the court to calculate the asset, income, and expenditure while considering a quick verification report.

The Vigilance Court had deviated from the mode of calculation adopted by the Vigilance during the quick verification, the petition contended.

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.