A probe scuttled: ‘10 times Mani’, Congress minister gets Kerala Vigilance clean chit

While Mani quit on Tuesday following adverse court remarks, Babu, who directly oversees the state’s liquor industry, was given a clean chit by the Vigilance bureau. The Vigilance report that cleared Babu showed no records of vehicle-entry registers, call-record analysis, CCTV footage, and details of bank accounts and other financial transactions as in the Mani probe.

This prompted Mani to allege bias. “In my case, I was subjected to a probe and FIR only on the basis of hearsay that I took bribe,” he told reporters. “There was not a single witness who saw me taking a bribe. But in Babu’s case, Biju Ramesh himself had said that he handed over Rs 50 lakh to Babu at the secretariat. It is evident that there was more evidence against Babu,” he added.

When contacted, Babu denied the allegations. “During the preliminary inquiry against Mani, there were adverse statements against him that he took money. In my case, there was no such adverse statements. So they cleared me,” Babu told The Indian Express.

K Babu

Sources said investigators had collected statements from over 300 witnesses in the bar bribery case. Given that Ramesh had alleged he paid Babu, investigators said, they had drawn up a plan to question Babu, probe his CDR details, movements, bank documents related to him and to his secretary Suresh Pai.

“But Vigilance director (Vinson M) Paul directed us to focus on Mani as there was no FIR against Babu. A preliminary inquiry ordered against Babu was also slowed down,” said an officer on the condition that he not be named.

Paul was not available for comment on this specific allegation but had earlier told The Indian Express that he only told his officers to “investigate each case on its merits”.

Consider what the investigators had on Babu as per Ramesh’s statement under Section 164 CrPC:

* On May 6, 2015, Ramesh, the working president of Kerala Bar Hotel owners Association (KBHA), gave an eight-page note to Vigilance bureau alleging that Babu used to collect Rs 25 lakh for each bar licence and Rs 15 lakh for every beer and wine parlour licence renewed annually under the Congress-led UDF government.

* Ramesh alleged that he paid Rs 50 lakh as bribe to Babu at the minister’s office in Thiruvananthapuram in April 2013, as part of Rs 10 crore paid in installments to cap the bar licence renewal fee that year. As agreed during a pre-budget meeting in February 2013, Babu then prevented a proposed Rs 7-lakh hike from the existing Rs 22 lakh and fixed the fee at Rs 23 lakh, Ramesh alleged.

* Ramesh stated that funds for the Rs 10-crore bribe was collected by KBHA leaders as “legal” and “political” funds to mask the real purpose on record.

* Ramesh stated that the KBHA had earlier paid Rs 3 crore to Babu at his chamber in May 2012 to prevent an increase in the bar-hotel licence fee for 2012-13.

Describing the meeting with Babu during which he handed over Rs 50 lakh “in the first week of April, 2013”, Ramesh stated he was asked to reach the minister’s office by other KBHA members M D Danesh, Raj Kumar Unni and Krishnadas Polakulathu who were already present there.

Stating that he reached the office along with his manager Radhakrishnan and a businessman-friend Muhammed Raseef, Ramesh added: “At the minister’s chamber, I told Unni about the cash I had brought for Babu. He informed the minister and we were asked to give it to Suresh Pai, Babu’s secretary. I handed over the bag to Pai.”

Ramesh also said he saw Pai keep the bag of cash in Babu’s car after the meeting.

When contacted, Ramesh told The Indian Express that he stood by his statement. He reiterated what he had claimed earlier that the officer questioning him on May 6 “seemed genuinely interested” in the case till lunch.
“After that, he asked me to stop recording my statement against Babu, as he had got a call from a senior official. He said it was director Paul,” Ramesh alleged. Paul had already denied these allegations earlier.

While Ramesh stated that the remaining Rs 9.5 crore was paid by Krishnadas at various locations, all other KBHA members denied all charges of bribery — this is the same group that had also denied handing over money to Mani.

The Vigilance report states that while Radhakrishnan and Raseef broadly corroborated Biju’s version of the meeting, they provided contradicting testimonies when asked in May 2015, about details such as the colour of the floor and the shirt worn by Pai that day nearly two years ago.

“Witnesses were quizzed two years after the incident. Asking them about the most insignificant aspects of an incident or details such as colour of a shirt would only help to establish that their statements were false,” said another Vigilance officer, who did not wish to be named.

The Vigilance report also claimed to have identified other contradictions in their testimonies. It stated that while Radhakrishnan said he was standing outside the minister’s office, Raseef claimed he was inside and Pai in an adjacent room.

Raseef said he saw Ramesh going with a bag to Pai’s room and returning in two minutes empty-handed. But the report stated Raseef failed to identify Babu’s secretary from photos shown to him as he saw him “only in the dark”.

The Vigilance report concluded that statements of the witnesses were “full of divergences” and that their demeanour during questioning suggested they were “tutored… and their versions are not credible enough to be taken seriously”.

The Vigilance report also said that there was no evidence “prima facie” to substantiate charges of Babu accumulating wealth and property illegally. It stated as false allegations that Babu took bribe in 2012 and collected money for bar licence renewals.

On June 6, 2015, the Vigilance bureau concluded that there was no prima facie evidence to file an FIR against Babu “considering the allegation, its timing and political fallout, and vested interest.”