Court castigates VACB in bar case

Says the agency showed ‘overenthusiasm’ in somehow closing the case

An anti-corruption court here has castigated the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) for making no earnest effort to collect evidence in the bar bribery case.

Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge D. Ajith Kumar had on Tuesday dismissed the agency’s appeal to close the corruption case against former Finance Minister K.M. Mani.

In his judgement, which became public on Wednesday, Mr. Kumar observed scathingly that the VACB had instead shown “overenthusiasm” to “somehow close the case on the ground of absence of evidence for the demand of bribe.”

The court had earlier considered the “factual report” filed by the first investigating officer in the case. It had found then that there was sufficient material to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the accused had obtained illegal gratification from Kerala Bar Hotels' Association (KBHA) office-bearers ostensibly to lobby for the re-licensing of over 300 bars the government had closed in 2013 on the ground that they were unhygienic. The court subsequently ordered a further inquiry for more evidence collection.

The investigating officer had made no effort to comply with the court’s direction. He did not attempt to trace the money trail in the case.

He “did not show the courtesy” to forensically identify the voices in the audio CD submitted by KBHA working president and prosecution witness Biju Ramesh as evidence. The investigating officer had submitted that the conversation was copied and hence not admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

The court reminded the VACB that appreciation of evidence was its preserve and neither the police nor the prosecutor could encroach on the judicial domain. Mr. Kumar said the investigating officer tried “to erase the findings” in the damning factual report filed initially by the VACB in 2014. (The agency had later reversed its stance and said there was no evidence to prosecute Mr. Mani). The court said the investigating officer took pain to interpret the evidence to make the factual report look legally void and of no importance.