The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) scam. The Court emphasized that baseless corruption investigations could unfairly damage the reputation and career of a public servant.
Court's Key Observation
The Court stated that initiating an unnecessary corruption probe against a public servant, based purely on suspicion, could have serious consequences.
"An unnecessary investigation or an enquiry into an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant based on such suspicions may cause a blemish on his career or reputation. Being called to appear before a criminal court as an accused is a serious matter that affects one's dignity, self-respect, and image in society."
Allegations Against CM Vijayan
Kuzhalnadan had alleged that CMRL paid Rs. 5 lakh per month to Veena Thaikkandiyil and Rs. 3 lakh per month to her company, Exalogic Solutions. The payment was allegedly made under the false pretense of obtaining IT and marketing consultancy services, but in reality, it was claimed to be a bribe to secure favorable decisions from the Chief Minister.
Case History and Vigilance Court's Stand
The Congress MLA had initially approached the Vigilance Court, seeking an order for investigation into the matter. However, the Vigilance Court declined his request. Dissatisfied with this decision, Kuzhalnadan moved the High Court in a revision petition.
In his 59-page judgment, Justice K. Babu dismissed the plea, highlighting that the petitioner had failed to present substantial evidence beyond suspicions.
“… the complainant could only place certain materials highlighting 'suspicions' based on the allegations in the complaint and 'not facts' constituting the offences alleged.”
Read also:Kerala High Court Directs Working Group to Formulate Ragging Prevention Rules
High Court’s Clarification and Criticism of the Vigilance Court
While rejecting the petition, the High Court clarified that Kuzhalnadan is not barred from filing a fresh complaint if he gathers sufficient evidence in the future.
Additionally, the Court criticized the Vigilance Court for suggesting that political motives could have influenced Kuzhalnadan’s petition. It deemed such an observation unnecessary.
"One of the essential facets of criminal justice administration is the initiation of criminal proceedings by a citizen or a member of the polity for the purpose of punishing an offender in the interest of society. The revision petitioner is a political leader and a member of the Legislative Assembly. As I have stated above, the facts relied on by the petitioner might probably have sparked suspicion. It was premature for the Special Court to make an observation that political motive might have triggered the revision petitioner for the initiation of the prosecution of the complaint."
Kuzhalnadan had relied on statements made by CMRL’s Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer, who had reportedly told the Interim Board for Settlement under the Income Tax Act that Veena’s company had not provided any services as expected.
However, the Director General of Prosecution (DGP) argued that these statements were based on diary entries not maintained as part of regular business records. He further stated that such entries were inadmissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Accepting this argument, the Court ruled that such material could not be relied upon to take cognizance of an offence, particularly in the absence of any other substantial evidence.
"The Court cannot look into inadmissible material to take cognizance of an offence, especially when there is no other supporting evidence."
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet: 588 of 2024
Case Title: Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others
