Vigilance court nod for probe into bar bribery case

Agency’s abrupt reversal of its position came on August 23 when R. Sukeshan, Investigating Officer, filed a confidential report in the court.

August 28, 2016 02:05 am | Updated 07:34 am IST - Thiruvananthapuram:

The development is fraught with political and legal implications for the Kerala Congress (M) leader and former Finance Minister K.M. Mani, the prime accused in the case.

The development is fraught with political and legal implications for the Kerala Congress (M) leader and former Finance Minister K.M. Mani, the prime accused in the case.

The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) on Saturday received permission from its special court here to further investigate the controversial bar licence renewal bribery case.

The development is fraught with political and legal implications for the Kerala Congress (M) leader and former Finance Minister K.M. Mani, the prime accused in the case.

It has also denoted a remarkable turnaround in the agency’s declared stance that there was no evidence to prosecute Mr. Mani. (The court had twice turned down its inquiry reports absolving Mr. Mani of all guilt in the case).

The agency’s abrupt reversal of its position on the case came on August 23 when R. Sukeshan, Investigating Officer (IO), filed a confidential report in the court. Mr. Sukeshan said a further investigation was necessary in the case to unearth the “incriminating evidence which were purposefully concealed or distorted by some material witnesses”. The “new facts touching the allegations involved in this case, which were not considered by the IO earlier, is forthcoming”.

He could not “obtain expert scientific analysis of the materials collected during the investigation” to form an opinion due to “imposition of an outer time frame” by the court. Mr. Sukeshan’s report remained classified. However, the conjectures about its particulars were many and varied.

Conspiracy at the top level?

One version aired by television channels said the report detailed a conspiracy at the top level in the Vigilance to sabotage the case. The surmise apparently spurred prominent ruling front leaders, notably V.S. Achuthanandan, to demand prosecution of the “suspect officials”.

Elaborately quoting several judgments, A. Badharudeen, Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, ruled that further investigation was permissible if an IO obtained further documentary or oral evidence even after he filed the final report in the case in court. The report on such an additional inquiry could be termed a “supplementary report”. The court has not stipulated any deadline for the Vigilance to file its report.

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.