Lavalin: HC to Hear CBI Plea on Feb 4
By Express News Service | Published: 01st February 2014 08:32 AM |
The non-binding MoU with Canadian firm SNC-Lavalin to establish Malabar Cancer Centre (MCC) was just an eyewash meant to make the alleged deal appear as promoting public interest, the CBI submitted before the Kerala High Court on Friday.
The investigation agency made the submission in the criminal revision petition challenging the CBI Special Court’s order acquitting CPM state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan and six others in the SNC-Lavalin graft case. The court will take up the petition for hearing on Tuesday.
The CBI submitted that Vijayan, who was well aware of the clandestine dealing, favoured extending undue benefits to the company.
The statements of witnesses and incriminating documents further established that Vijayan, along with K Mohanachandran and K G Rajasekharan Nair, had visited Canada on the pretext of carrying out a discussion with SNC firm at the cost and expense of public money without including a technical member.
During the visit, they took the decision to confer illegal advantage on SNC and also recanvassed it for aiding MCC. The court discharged seven of the nine accused, including Vijayan. SNC vicepresident Klaus Triendl and SNC-Lavalin are still listed as accused.
'Special Judge Ignored Crucial Documents'
The Special judge had got into irrelevant arguments without going into the incrimenting material and documents furnished by the prosecution to establish strong prima facie case against the accused, the CBI said.
According to the CBI, the prosecution case was based on the allegations of a high-handed criminal conspiracy hatched up among the accused to dishonestly award contracts for renovation and modernisation of Pallivasal, Sengulam and Panniar to SNC when Vijayan was the Power Minister in the Left Democratic Front Government in the mid-90s, causing a loss of `243 crore to the public exchequer.
The Thiruvananthapuram Special Court, without considering valuable and incriminating evidence, passed the verdict, the CBI submitted.
The agreement was signed on an understanding that the company will provide financial assistance for constructing the MCC.
Documents collected by the CBI prove that the cost per Mega Watt expenditure awarded for the project was very much higher when compared with a similar project.
The Special Court failed to analyse and consider the scope and legal effect of the allegations against the accused.
It had erred by considering irrelevant factors like interpretation of the contract awarded in the light of a civil liability cost on parties while subduing the dishonest criminal intention manifest and explicit in the deal from documents and other incriminating material produced by the prosecution.