Bar bribery case: Court orders further probe against KM Mani

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Vigilance special court here has found prima facie evidence in the allegations that Finance Minister K.M. Mani took a bribe of Rs 25 lakh in two installments from Kerala Bar Hotel Association office-bearers and rapped Vigilance director Vinson M. Paul for “compelling” the probe officer to drop the case. The court also ordered a further investigation.

Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) John K Illikkadan’s judgment on the eve of the local elections, virtually putting Mr Mani in the dock, embarrassed the ruling UDF.

Stung by the verdict and references, Mr Vinson M. Paul stepped down from his post and proceeded on leave, barely one month ahead of retirement.

The Opposition clamoured for the resignation of Mr Mani and Chief Minister Oommen Chandy but both rebuffed the demand.

The special court  rejected  the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau's (VACB) closure report on the grounds that the opinion reflected in the final report was not that of the investigation officer SP R.S. Sukesan that  Mr Mani could be charge-sheeted, but that of  Mr  Vinson M. Paul that there was no sufficient evidence to charge-sheet Mr Mani.

The 61-page judgment by special judge John K. Illikkadan listed out lapses in the investigation and VACB's observations. As per the court order,  Mr. Sukesan himself would conduct a further probe  unless he is removed from the post of Special Investigation Unit-I SP, said sources.

Mr Vinson M. Paul announced his decision to step down from the Vigilance director post and go on leave until his retirement from service on November 30, citing that his continuation in the post during the further probe could affect the credentials of the VACB.

He also said that he firmly stood  by his opinion that there was no sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Mani in the factual report submitted by SP Sukesan.

The court pointed out serious flaws in the probe and also set aside the argument that there was no evidence for the demand or acceptance of the bribe.  

“It is not necessary that the demand and passing of money should be proved by direct evidence. It may also be proved by circumstantial evidence,” the court observed citing that there was  direct and circumstantial evidence  regarding the bar owners visiting Mr Mani at his Pala and Thiruvananthapuram residences on March 22,  and April 2, 2014 respectively and paying a bribe of Rs 15 lakh and Rs 10 lakh.

“From an overall analysis of the material available on record and from the events which followed in quick succession in the case at hand, it can be seen that there are sufficient materials for making out a prima facie case in respect of the alleged incident on March 22 and April 2,” said  the judgment.

The court also pointed out flaws in the scrutiny report of the Vigilance director.  “From a perusal of the scrutiny report of Vigilance director and the covering letter attached to it, it can safely be inferred that the director VACB rather compelled the investigation officer to file a final report in tune with the scrutiny report,” said the order.

Though the investigation officer was found to have taken earnest efforts to conduct the investigation, the Vig-ilance director brushed it aside under the guise of supervisor powers without analysing the factual report and material collected, it said.

The director also did not give any direction to the investigation officer for a further inquiry.  “Such type of attitude from  a superior officer has to be deprecated,” the court observed.

The prosecution had not offered any reasonable explanation regarding the circumstance in which the Vigilance director obtained legal opinion from outside agencies bypassing all state law officers, it said.

The judgment  said that virtually there was no purpose in the postponement of the matter pertaining to the bar licence renewal from the cabinet meeting  on March 26, to April 2, 2014.    

It also found lapses in the probe as  a voice analysis of the CD containing the conversations of the bar owners was not conducted.