The High Court on Friday observed that Sreedharan Nair’s revelation that he had met Chief Minister Oommen Chandy along with prime accused Saritha S Nair on July 9, 2012, is not true and need not be probed, while dismissing a petition seeking to seize computer hard discs and servers supporting the CCTV cameras in the Secretariat.
The court made the observation after meticulously reading the complaint filed by Sreedharan Nair.
In paragraph two of the complaint, Sreedharan Nair had stated that Saritha took him to the Chief Minister’s office where he had the chance to talk to Chandy and others about the project.
Saritha had assured the complainant of help from the government. Relying on her assurances, Sreedharan Nair took interest in getting a solar plant installed.
In paragraph three, he had stated that the accused, with an intention to cheat him and to obtain unlawful gain, again met him on June 22, 2012, and held lengthy discussions about the installation of the plant. In paragraph 4, it was pointed out that the accused and complainant entered into an agreement on June 25, 2012, for the installation of solar plant. On that day, Sreedharan Nair handed over two cheque leaflets of `15 lakh each to Saritha, which were later encashed.
“Admittedly, there was only a single meeting with the Chief Minister and it was alleged to be held on July 9, 2012. On a plain reading of the complaint, it is crystal clear that even according to the complaint he had met the Chief Minister on a date prior to June 22, 2012. In the complaint, no date is mentioned regarding the meeting,” the court observed.
The court also pointed out that there was a lengthy discussion regarding the setting up of solar plant on June 22. It was stated in paragraph three that, on that day, after the discussion, Sreedharan Nair was convinced about the project sponsored by the accused. Thereafter, the accused went to his establishment on June 25. “On verification of the facts, remarks made in Section 164 of the statement that he had met the Chief Minister on July 9 are not true and need not be probed,” the court observed.