KOCHI: In a major relief for the LDF government led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday stayed for two months, all further proceedings against LIFE Mission based on the FIR registered by CBI in the Wadakkancherry LIFE Mission housing project scam. But, the court rejected the plea of Santhosh Eappen, Managing Director of Unitac, who is the first accused, seeking an interim order staying the FIR against him.
The CBI had filed an FIR under Section 120 B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC and Section 35 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 on a complaint by Wadakancherry Congress MLA Anil Akkara, listing Santosh Eappen, Managing Director of Unitac Builders, Kochi, first accused and Sane Ventures, the second accused and unknown officials of M/S LIFE Mission, Kerala.
While passing the interim order, Justice VG Arun made it clear that there was no reason to interdict the investigation in the FIR- RC No 5 (A) /2020/CBI/ACB/Cochin. At the same time, the provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulations Act (FCRA) and the materials on record do not justify the implication against the LIFE Mission. In the result, there will be an interim stay of all further proceedings of the FIR against Chief Executive Officer, LIFE Mission, the petitioner in Crl.M.C no.4375 of 2020, for a period of two months.
The court issued the order on the petitions filed by CEO, LIFE Mission and Santhosh Eappen MD of Unitac seeking to quash the FIR in the case.
The court observed that the contention of MD Unitac that the exception under 4 (c) of the FCR Act would apply to him is liable to be rejected. The entrustment of construction work under an agreement will not confer the status of an agent on the builder.
Advocate Sashtamangalam Ajith Kumar, Counsel for CBI told TNIE that there was no impediment for carrying out the investigation in the case. "The court stayed the case against the CEO of the Mission only. It will not the investigation at all, because the court made it clear that FIR need not be quashed and under the notifications, CBI is the only authority to carry out the probe. There is no restrictions to summon the officers as part of the probe to collect evidence in the case," he added.
The LDF government had courted controversy after Swapna Suresh, the prime accused in the gold smuggling case, deposed that the amount found in the safe locker of her bank was the commission received for channeling foreign aid to the builder who was constructing the houses as part LIFE Mission project scheme.
The state government submitted before the court that the provisions under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) could not be invoked against it. The investigation by the CBI was an abuse of the process of the law. A Vigilance enquiry is going on with respect to allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act and an FIR was registered. That will continue unabated.
The government had no role in the agreement between Red Crescent and the two construction companies - Unitac and Sane Ventures. The CBI had registered the FIR with mala fide intention and the agency was guided by political and extraneous considerations, he argued. The FIR had alleged violation of section 3 of the Foreign Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. In fact, the LIFE Mission had not accepted any contribution, much less any foreign contributions. The contractual agreement for the construction of the buildings under the Life Mission was executed between the Consular General of United Arab Emirate and Unitac, a construction company. It was the sponsors which had selected Unitac and Sane Ventures for giving contract for constructing the buildings under the project. "Neither the state government nor LIFE Mission had any role in the section of contractors. Nor the State government or the LIFE Mission had entrusted any construction activities with these construction companies. The construction companies which had inked agreements with the Consulate General of United Arab Emirates did not come under any categories of persons prohibited from receiving any foreign contributions under section 3 of the Act," argued the government. Even if it was assumed that they had received any contribution or any amount from the Red Crescent had provided financial assistance for the project, no offense could be attributed to them. Besides, any amount received by way of fee or cost in lieu of goods or services rendered in the ordinary course would not come under the foreign contributions as per explanation 3 to section 2(h) of the Act, the state government counsel said
LIFE Mission only gave the land and the two companies that are building the homes received the foreign donations directly into their accounts, the petitioner submitted.