KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed petitions filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan and late Gireesh Babu of Kalamassery seeking a vigilance probe into the alleged illegal financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena, and three UDF leaders.
"An unnecessary investigation or an enquiry into an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant based on suspicions may cause a blemish on his career or reputation. Being called to appear before a criminal court as an accused is a serious matter that affects one's dignity, self-respect, and image in the society," said Justice K Babu.
The complainants alleged that CMRL paid Rs.1.72 Crores to Exalogic Solution Pvt Ltd and Veena T, which was a bribe paid to Pinarayi Vijayan for doing favors and misusing his official position. Besides, other public servants - MLA Ramesh Chennithala, MLA Kunhalikutty and former Minister for Public Works V K Ebrahim Kunju, and A Govindan - were also named as accused in the matter for having received illegal gratification.
The complaint was based on the order of the Interim Settlement Board, New Delhi, wherein many admissions were made by the officers of the company that would disclose offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The IT department found that CMRL has been systematically inflating its expenses and made payments in cash to several individuals, including media houses and politicians.
TA Shaji, Director General of Prosecution, submitted that the statement made by the authorised officer of CMRL before the Interim Board for Settlement based on certain loose papers regarding the receipt of money by political leaders cannot be treated as a fact constituting the alleged offence.
Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, counsel for the CMRL, submitted that the confession alleged to have been given by the Chief Financial Officer of CMRL before the Interim Board for Settlement has no evidentiary value, and the same cannot be relied upon to set the criminal law in motion.
The court said that the complainant could only place certain materials highlighting ‘suspicions’ based on the allegations in the complaint and ‘not facts’ constituting the alleged offences. The court made it clear that rejection of the complaint does not preclude the complainant from filing a fresh complaint with adequate materials in the future.