The Kerala High Court on Wednesday flayed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) for what it called “excess” actions on the part of the bureau in registering cases, even in relation to a State Budget proposal.
Justice P. Ubaid, hearing a petition filed by Benny Abraham of Kottayam, challenging a Vigilance case registered against him, observed that “ here is a very strange situation of anarchic action of excess on the part of the VACB in Kerala.”
While Mr. Abraham is the second accused, former Finance Minister K.M. Mani is listed as the first accused. According to the Vigilance case, the former Finance Minister had abused his official position by granting exemption in payment of sales tax with retrospective effect from 2015 to a lead oxide manufacturing unit of Benny Joseph without considering the relevant file notings.
The court noted that the petitioner had availed himself of the benefit of a budgetary proposal made by the then government in power and the proposal had now become part of the Finance Act passed by the Kerala Assembly.
The VACB was now probing into the corruption elements in the legislative act. If the VACB went to that extent, something would have to be done by the High Court.
Continue probe
The court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who registered the crime, to appear on April 6 to explain how or under what authority he had registered the crime for probing “the wisdom of the legislative Assembly”. He was also asked to explain whether the investigation should be continued.
If the court found that “Vigilance excess” was extending even into the legislative process in Kerala, the Director of Vigilance will have to be summoned to the court to show cause against actions in matters pending before the court.
The Chief Secretary and the secretaries of Finance, Home, and Vigilance Departments had been asked to file separate statements explaining the stance of the government with regard to the excess actions on the part of the VACB.
The court during the hearing of the case wondered why the Vigilance Director was allowed to continue in the post despite such excess. The court also asked why the State government was keeping mum notwithstanding the fact that the court had time and again pointed out such actions earlier.
Prima facie evidence
In the affidavit, the VACB said there was prima facie evidence against the accused in the case. It was also revealed that the accused had gained undue pecuniary advantage and caused corresponding financial loss to the State.
The court while dealing with another Vigilance case relating to misappropriation of funds of a hospital society pointed out that the petitioner who should have been a witness had been arraigned as accused in the case.
The petitioner must be the most competent witness to prove the alleged forgery. It was either ignorance of law or a folly. He would spoil the case. The investigation officer was asked to file a report explaining the progress and stage of the investigation.
