Court posts VS plea to July 30

SIT report on allegations made by Rauf in sex scandal case

The Kozhikode Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (I) on Friday posted to July 30 a petition filed by Leader of the Opposition V.S. Achuthanandan seeking to consider his views before the court considers the final report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that probed the allegations made by K.A. Rauf, businessman, in the Kozhikode ice-cream parlour sex-scandal case.

Mr. Achuthanandan arrived in the court to file the petition through his counsel P. Rajeev a day after the Supreme Court asked the State government to furnish a copy of the final report to him. Magistrate P.T. Prakashan, who considered the same petition on June 19, had then asked Mr. Achuthanandan to appear in person before the court and if he was unable to appear in person he could secure an exemption order from the High Court of Kerala in this regard.

Mr. Achuthanandan, who filed the petition under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, said he had already filed a petition before the High Court with a prayer that the investigation in this case should be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the reason that “one of the accused in this crime has become a Cabinet member of the State.”

He said the police registered a case against Mr. Rauf and his relative Industries Minister P.K. Kunhalikutty on the basis of a press conference by the former. Mr. Rauf had then alleged that the ice-cream parlour sex-scandal case had been won after influencing “witnesses and presiding officers of several courts that the name of Mr. Kunhalikutty did not figure as an accused in the case.”

Court monitoring

Mr. Achuthanandan said that when the SIT started probing the case, there was a change in government and Mr. Kunhalikutty became a “prominent Minister” in the State Cabinet. Subsequently, he had to file a writ petition in the High court seeking a CBI probe. But as an interim measure, the investigation was being monitored by the High Court.

The SIT then filed the report in the High Court and later a refer report in the case at the magistrate court. “The intention of the SIT was only to countermand the proceedings before the High Court of Kerala to deny an investigation being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation.”

Mr. Achuthanandan said the investigating officer had filed the refer report in a hurry when even the High Court had not finally considered the report filed by the SIT. “The High Court had also not considered whether the investigation carried out by the SIT is satisfactory or whether the investigation should be handed over to the CBI,” he said in the petition.