Chennai: The Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, Rajesh Lakhoni, has informed the Madras high court that based on a report from income tax department and direction of Election Commissioner of India, complaints regarding largescale bribing of voters and illegalities during RK Nagar bypoll, cancelled two days ahead of the poll scheduled for April 12.
When a PIL filed by Vairakkannan, an advocate, seeking CBI probe into the illegalities and malpractices during the electioneering, came up for hearing, Rajesh Lakhoni filed a counter affidavit stating that the then Returning Officer of the RK Nagar Assembly Constituency filed complaints with Abiramapuram police station on April 21, 2017.
On the information on tax evasion and distribution of cash for voters in the constituency, the income tax department conducted a search and raided 21 places in Chennai and 11 other parts of the state. The premises belonged to Dr C. Vijaya Baskar, minister for health and his associates.
Sarath Kumar, film actor, Rajendran, former AIADMK MP and Dr S. Geetha Lakshmi Director of Health Services and Vice-Chancellor of Dr MGR Medical University were prominent among the associates.
The I-T department also informed that several complaints were received indicating that the minister was the main person involved in bribing the voters and documents seized from his accountant Srinivasan also indicated the distribution of Rs 89 crore to a number of politicians for distribution to the voters. In a raid conducted in the premises of Rajendran, it was found that a huge amount transported in a vehicle for bribing the voters.
As many as 12 FIRs were registered in connection with the distribution of materials, including saris, lamps (kuthuvilakku), household articles and another 35 FIRs were filed for distribution of cash or gift. FIR was also filed at the direction from the ECI and on the communications between the CEO, Returning Officer and the Commissioner of Police. The Election Commission will follow up with the investigation and prosecution without interference, he assured.
Challenging the PIL, the CEO stated that the petitioner not submitted any proof of the complaints given by him or proof of him being a resident of the constituency. Hence, he sought to dismiss the petition.
