KOCHI: For decades, V S Achuthanandan’s unwavering and unflinching voice echoed in the corridors of justice – even when he had to go it alone. Among the many causes he championed, one continues to haunt the conscience of the state: the infamous ice cream parlour case.
In 2018, VS filed two criminal review petitions challenging the Kozhikode magistrate court’s order dismissing a plea for further investigation into the ice cream parlour case, registered based on the revelations of K A Rauf, the estranged co-brother of IUML leader P K Kunhalikutty. The pleas are pending before the High Court. Now, with his passing, a chilling uncertainty lingers: who will pick up the torch he carried for so long?
D Anil Kumar, who represented VS in HC, said it is for the court to decide the future course of action in the case, which dates to 1997. “This is a sad state of affairs; the delay in the system has caused irreparable damage,” Anil told TNIE. The final report was filed by the special investigation team (SIT) before the JFCM-I Kozhikode, which accepted it in December 2017.
A ray of hope in the case is a petition for impleadment, dated December 13, 2021, filed by T Abdulla, a former League leader, which is pending before the HC in support of the petitions filed by VS. “The case may not be closed as the petition is still pending. It was filed by Abdulla when VS was bedridden after suffering a stroke,” advocate P Chandrasekhar said.
The petitions filed by VS said there was a failure on the part of the magistrate in evaluating the closure report filed by the SIT. The petitioner also sought a directive to the trial court not to accept the police report.
The police registered the case based on revelations made by Rauf that he and the former minister had subverted the investigation by influencing witnesses and the judiciary. VS then requested the HC to order a CBI probe. When his plea was declined, he approached the Supreme Court, which directed the magistrate court to consider his contentions without being prejudiced by observations made by the HC.
Challenging the magistrate court’s decision not to allow a further investigation, VS alleged that his contentions were not considered in the proper perspective, which resulted in erroneous and illegal conclusions.
The petition filed by Abdulla said in view of his old age and poor health, it may not be possible for VS to give personal attention to the case.
He also claimed that the investigation was shabby and several crucial pieces of evidence were destroyed. Moreover, witnesses were also influenced.
Though several facts were revealed by prime witness Regina in a subsequent TV interview and when Rauf came out with revelations of having spent huge amounts for and on behalf of the prime accused, who is a powerful politician, the magistrate rejected the application and accepted the closure report, the petition said.
“I have inside knowledge of many aspects of the case. After 1992 I left politics, fed up with the dishonest manner in which the politics is taking shape in the party in which I had been working. Hence, I would like to take up the matter,” submitted Abdulla.