An anti-corruption court here will decide on October 29 whether to accept or reject the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) report clearing Finance Minister K.M. Mani of the charges of corruption in the bar licence renewal bribery case.
Over the past two months, the court had heard several petitions filed by leaders across the political spectrum demanding that the contentious report be rejected forthwith and a further inquiry ordered.
The politicians, notably Leader of the Opposition V.S. Achuthanandan, Aam Aadmi Party convener Sarah Joseph, and Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) State unit president V. Muraleedharan, were unanimous in their main contention that the VACB higher-ups had coerced the investigating officer R. Sukeshan to doctor the report to save Mr. Mani from prosecution.
ADVERTISEMENT
The dichotomy between the two investigative reports filed in the court by the Mr. Sukeshan in a span of one month was suggestive of the extraneous pressure exerted on him to absolve the suspect of all guilt.
The “Factual Report,” which Mr. Sukeshan had filed initially, stated that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr. Mani. The “Final Report,” filed shortly afterwards, stated that there was no evidence to prosecute Mr. Mani. Justice had been compromised, they argued.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court battle also saw Director of VACB Vinson M. Paul recurrently coming under sharp criticism from petitioners.
They said Mr. Vinson had overstepped the bounds of his legal authority when he authored a damning report criticising Mr. Sukeshan’s initial finding that there was sufficient evidence to criminally indict Mr. Mani for corruption in the graft case.
The AAP pointedly accused Mr. Vinson of playing the part of a “defence lawyer picking holes in a prosecution story.” It argued that Mr. Vinson had “violently” rejected Mr. Sukeshan’s report against Mr. Mani without offering any constructive advice to make the case against the suspect water tight. Another petitioner demanded that Mr. Vinson be examined as a witness in the court.
The court saw Vigilance prosecutors fiercely defending the director’s action. They argued that the court need only consider the final report filed by Mr. Sukeshan.
The director’s report on the initial finding of Mr. Sukeshan was irrelevant to the current hearing for a further inquiry.
Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge John K. Illikadan presided.
Over the past two months, the court had heard several petitions demanding that the report be rejected forthwith and a further inquiry ordered.