KANNUR: The statement given to the police by Kannur Collector Arun K. Vijayan, which was quoted by the Thalassery Sessions Court in its order, has become the latest controversy in the case related to the death of former ADM Naveen Babu. Advocate K. Viswan, who represents P.P. Divya, the accused in the case, stated that there should be more clarity regarding the statement, as it is crucial to the case.
In his order, Thalassery Sessions Judge K.T. Nizar Ahammed quoted the collector as saying that the ADM had come to his chamber and stated that he had committed a mistake. The court observed that this statement cannot be considered proof of the ADM taking a bribe for issuing a no-objection certificate for a petrol pump.
However, Adv. Viswan told reporters on Wednesday that the police should have sought further clarification on the statement. He suggested that the police should have asked the collector whether he had inquired of the ADM what the mistake was. “The statement can be interpreted differently. But we believe that it is somehow connected to the case,” Viswan said. According to the collector, the ADM met with him shortly after the farewell function where Divya made her remarks. The collector informed the media on Wednesday that what appeared in the court order is his statement, adding that his full statement has not been made public.
Revenue Minister K. Rajan, however, noted that there is no mention of such a statement in the report submitted to him by the collector. AICC General Secretary K.C. Venugopal alleged that the CPM is behind the collector’s ‘U-turn.’
Meanwhile, Divya’s lawyer, who filed a petition for regular bail on Wednesday, raised serious doubts about the investigation, stating that the police have not produced important documents before the court during the hearing for anticipatory bail.
Adv. Viswan expressed suspicion that the police concealed certain vital documents from the court. He noted that the police have not produced the order suspending T.V. Prasanthan, who alleged that he had given bribes to the ADM. The advocate believes that both the order and the statement Prasanthan provided to the inquiry officer are crucial to the case. “These documents have not become part of the case diary. We believe that there was an attempt to block these documents from reaching the court,” he stated.
