Amidst the recurring setbacks it was suffering in the court in the sensational bar bribery case involving State Finance and law Minister KM Mani, the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on Thursday admitted that it was wrong on the part of the agency’s Director, Vinson M Paul, to seek legal advice form a private lawyer on the basis of which a recommendation not to prosecute the Minister was made.
The agency admitted before the Special Vigilance Court in Thiruvananthapuram that it was a lapse on its part to hand over documents including case diary to a private lawyer. The Prosecution’s admission came just after Special Vigilance Judge John K Illikkadan pointed out the illegality in the Vigilance’s action of seeking legal advice from outside.
The Vigilance had sought legal advice from a private lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court when there were several Government lawyers in Kerala itself. It was on the basis of this advice that the Vigilance Director had come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to justify Mani’s prosecution.
In his factual report, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) R Sukesan, who investigated the bar bribery scam, had said that there were enough evidences to initiate prosecution proceedings against Mani, who was accused of taking Rs 1 crore as bribe from the State’s bar owners for helping them in getting licences renewed for their bars that were closed for lack of facilities.
Sukesan had said in the factual report that he had collected circumstantial evidences and supporting witness statements which suggested that Mani had taken bribe from the bar owners. However, the final report - allegedly prepared under instructions from the Vigilance Director - he presented to the court had said that there was no evidence to prosecute Mani.
In the court on Thursday, the Vigilance also said that the actions of the probe officer, Sukesan, in the case were untrustworthy, adding that he had recommended Mani’s prosecution even in the absence of evidence. However, the court asked the Vigilance why it had allowed the official to continue the probe if he was not trustworthy.
Judge Illikkadan further pointed out that the Vigilance Director had no authority to interfere in a report prepared by the probe officer or to issue instructions on its content. All the Director could do was to change the official or to order a follow-up investigation if he was not satisfied with the report, the judge added.
The Vigilance had suffered a major setback during arguments the other day when the judge rejected the Prosecution’s claim that the Vigilance Director had not given any instructions to the probe officer but had only expressed his opinion. The judge emphatically pointed out that letter the Director had issued to the official had carried strict instructions to him.
The bar bribery scam, which had pushed the Congress-led UDF Government to a deep crisis, had erupted on October 1, 2014 when bar owner Biju Ramesh accused Mani, chairman of the Kerala Congress, third biggest UDF constituent, of demanding Rs 5 crore as bribe from bar owners and taking Rs 1 crore of it.
Mani rejected the allegation and his party came to the conclusion that it was part of a conspiracy hatched against him within the ruling coalition following the rumours that he was trying to become Chief Minister. A case was formally registered against Mani after a quick verification by the Vigilance found that the charge was not totally unfounded.
Responding to the developments in the court, State CPI(M) secretary and Deputy Opposition leader in the Assembly Kodiyeri Balakrishnan wanted to know whether the Government had paid the private legal advisor. “If the Government had not paid the lawyer, who paid himIJ” asked Kodiyeri.