[ad_1]
The amicus curiae appointed by the Kerala High Court submitted on Thursday that there are sufficient prima facie material in the complaint for ordering a preliminary investigation into the allegation of financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and other important UDF leaders.
The amicus curiae was appointed by the High Court when a petition filed by late social activist Greesh Babu challenging the vigilance court’s order came up for hearing yesterday
Amicus curiae Akhil Vijay submitted that the plea for a vigilance probe was dismissed on the ground that that there was no prima facie material to substantiate the charge. Considering the materials produced along with the complaint, the vigilance court should have ordered a preliminary inquiry into the allegations and find out whether prima facie case had been made out. The documents produced by the complainant were not loose papers but which were scrutinized during the judicial proceedings. Therefore, the finding of of the vigilance court was that the documents produced by the complainant were loose papers was misplaced. He also submitted that the allegations were specific and backed by cogent material which were part of valid judicial proceedings.
He further submitted that the court had not considered the sworn statements of the accused at the time of search wherein the company CEO had admitted that they had paid cash to politicians to overcome the threat and obstacles to the smooth functioning of the company.
Moreover, the statement of the accused recorded in the order of the Income Tax Department’s Interim Settlement Board’s had disclosed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The question of obtaining sanction from the government under the provision of the Prevention Corruption Act would arise only when the vigilance court decided to proceed with the investigating after the preliminary investigation
The complaint has been filed by the late social activist in the wake of an order of the Interim Board for Settlement of the Income Tax department, which disclosed the payments made to the politicians by the company. He had pointed out that the Vigilance court had miserably failed to appreciate the law prevailing in proper perspective.
The court reserved its order on the petition after the conclusion of the arguments.
[ad_2]
Source link
