CPM reinstates Deshabhimani general manager

The CPIM had initially claimed the money from Martin and his son was taken as a 8220;bond8221;.

It later contradicted that to say it was an 8220;advance8221; against advertisement costs after it turned out that Deshabhimani could not have legally floated bonds. Later, party leaders also described it as a 8220;loan8221;, before finally coming back to claiming it was a bond.

The Vigilance Department was asked to probe the issue after a lawyer filed a petition in the Vigilance Court alleging a corrupt quid-pro-quo between Martin and the ruling CPIM in return for the favour.

The DSP who probed it, however, reported that he found no evidence to substantiate the corruption charge and the court dropped the case. The Vigilance also refused to go into whether the CPIM organ was authorised to float bonds, maintaining it was upto the SEBI or the RBI to look into it.