Premium
This is an archive article published on June 24, 2016

Solar scam: Kerala HC quashes Vigilance court proceedings against Chandy

The Judge said necessity of quick verification comes up only when a complaint reveals some probable allegation of corruption.

Oommen Cahndy, Former CM Oommen Chandi, Kerala solar scam, solar scam kerala, kerala corruption , OOmmen chandy corruption charges, Kerala news, Kerala corruption, latest news, India news Oommen Chandy, outgoing chief minister of Kerala.(File)

In a relief to former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and former Power Minister Aryadan Mohammed, the Kerala High Court on Friday quashed proceedings initiated by the Vigilance Court in Thrissur against them in connection with bribery charge in the solar scam.

Justice B Kemal Pasha, allowing a petition by Chandy and Mohammed, said the vigilance court had acted in a haste and the complaint does not disclose anything even for a quick verification.

On January 28, Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge Thrissur S S Vassan had directed Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Director to register an FIR on a private complaint by a social worker on bribery charges against Chandy and Mohammed levelled by solar scam prime accused Saritha S Nair before a judicial commission probing the matter.

[related-post]

Watch Video: What’s making news

Story continues below this ad

The high court in an interim order on the very next day suspended the Vigilance court order, observing that it had acted mechanically without knowing the nature and extent of its powers.

Saritha, while deposing before the Justice G Sivarajan Commission, had alleged that she had paid bribes to the tune of Rs 1.90 crore to a close aide of Chandy and Rs 40 lakh to Mohammed.

Setting aside the FIR and further proceddings, Justice Pasha said the complaint in the vigilanec court was not worth to be accepted by a court of law.

The Judge said necessity of quick verification comes up only when a complaint reveals some probable allegation of corruption and hearsay cannot be treated as a material for investigation.

Story continues below this ad

Mere ‘revelation’ by Saritha before the commission cannot be said to be a matter to be acted upon in any manner when she has not stood for cross-examination fully, he said.

Justice Pasha also said since the matter narrated by the petitioner was within the knowledge of Saritha, by any stretch of imagination, the complainant cannot be permitted to assume role of Saritha.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement