Government refers Saritha’s latest complaint to police chief

SIT states its case in solar issue

October 19, 2017 11:26 pm | Updated October 20, 2017 08:06 am IST - Thiruvananthapuram

A. Hemachandran. C. Ratheesh Kumar

A. Hemachandran. C. Ratheesh Kumar

The State government on Thursday ordered the police to examine a second complaint filed by solar investment scam accused Saritha S. Nair in which she has pointedly charged the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that probed the financial fraud with “sabotaging” her complaints against United Democratic Front (UDF) leaders.

Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan forwarded the letter to State Police Chief Loknath Behera for appropriate action.

Saritha, in a complaint to Mr. Vijayan this week, has held the police responsible for the disappearance of the “incriminating letter” she penned while in judicial custody at Perumbavoor in 2012. A laptop confiscated from her house during a police raid in 2013 was also missing.

So far, the government has not followed up on its October 10 decision to criminally investigate top-rung UDF leaders and members of the SIT in connection with the scam.

It has made no legal provision to constitute the proposed special police team with extensive jurisdiction to investigate the politicians and law enforcers who had come under a cloud after the government revealed some of the commission’s findings.

Officials said the government had sought more time to examine the points raised by SIT chief A. Hemachandran legally.

SIT stance

The SIT recently told the government that it had deposed before the commission that it had not investigated the plethora of allegations raised in the Assembly in connection with the solar scam.

The SIT had come into legal existence on the basis a particular proceedings issued by the State Police Chief in 2013. Its sole mandate was to probe 33 solar-racket related cheating cases spread across the State. The SIT had not overstepped that brief.

The team had also attested on record that it was willing to pursue any fresh evidence that came up before the commission as per Section 173 (8) of the CrPC. However, the commission had not forwarded any new evidence to the SIT.

Saritha’s controversial letter in 2012 was a privileged communication between her and her lawyer. The police were not privy to its contents. Saritha had not complained against any police officer or politician to the SIT.

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.