SC clears decks for palmolein case trial

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, MARCH 29. The Supreme Court, in dismissing an appeal from Mr. K. Karunakaran, former Chief Minister of Kerala (appellant) for quashing of the 1997 first information report (FIR) and subsequent proceedings initiated against him (appellant) on allegations of `corruption' in connection with import of 15,000 MT Palmolein during 1991 and 1992 (when he was Chief Minister) has cleared the decks for the trial of the concerned criminal case (against the appellant and other accused) according to law in the competent court at Thiruvananthapuram.

Mr. Justice R. P. Sethi, delivering the judgment of the Bench, said that during the course of the hearing of this appeal, it was pointed out that the `investigation' had been completed and the `final report' (charge-sheet) submitted in the competent court (Thiruvananthapuram), as permitted by the Apex Court's earlier interim order dated December 11 last year. Therefore, the Bench, which included Mr. Justice G. B. Pattanaik, ``did not propose to comment on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the parties at the trial''.

The appeal from Mr. Karunakaran was directed against the orders dated July 1, 1997 of the Kerala High Court dismissing his (appellant) petition for quashing all proceedings pursuant to crime case (FIR) No. 1/1997.

The Bench, on scrutiny of the pleadings this matter, held that ``the registration of the FIR against the appellant and others cannot be held to be the result of mala fides or actuated by extraneous considerations''.

``The menace of corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities'', and ``in such matters probes conducted are required to be determined on facts and in accordance with law'', the Bench noted.

The allegations of mala fides ``were, admittedly, not the basis for challenging the registration of the FIR in the High Court'', the Bench said.

If during the conduct of a ``preliminary enquiry, the commission of an offence comes to light on the basis of new materials, the respondent- officials (police officials concerned) were obliged to register a case and present it in a competent court of jurisdiction for holding of trial and adjudication'', the Bench observed.

The appellant, who was the Chief Minister between 1991 and 1995, laid down his office as CM in March 1995 when, following the elections to the State Assembly, the party and the United Democratic Front of appellant lost and the Left Democratic Front (LDF) came into power in early 1996.

On June 18, 1996, the Commissioner-Secretary (C-S) requested the Director of Vigilance, Investigation to submit `enquiry report' to the government at the earliest after conducting a `preliminary enquiry' into the allegations raised in the Legislative Assembly pertaining to Palmolien deal in which `corruption' worth crores of rupees had been alleged.

The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, conducted a `preliminary enquiry' upto March, 1997 whereafter Criminal Case No.1 of 1997 at Vigilance Cell, Police Station, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala was registered under Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120B IPC against certain persons including the appellant.

The grievance of the appellant was that the order dated June 18, 1996 of the C-S was actuated by extraneous considerations and intended to harass a political opponent of a ruling party.

This plea ``is without any substance inasmuch as in that the letter of the C-S had requested the Vigilance to conduct a preliminary enquiry with respect to the allegations raised in the Legislative Assembly and submit report'', the Bench said.

``It is worth considering that despite dismissal of the (related) petitions filed (by certain persons) against the appellant by the High Court and this court (during 1994-95), the matter pertaining to the purchase of `Palmolien deal' had not been shelved and was very much alive so far as the State assembly is concerned'', the Bench observed.

The appellant, when he was the Chief Minister, had declared in the Assembly for probe into the allegations and a committee on Public Undertakings was seized of the matter, the Bench said.

From the contents of the letter of C-S, ``it cannot be inferred that any direction had been issued for registration of a criminal case against the appellant and others,'' the Bench said.

``What the C-S had desired was the conducting of preliminary enquiry which could not be prayed to be shut because as apprehended it could lead to the registration of a case'', the Bench observed.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Regional
Previous : 3 seats for Cong.(I), 1 for BJP
Next     : Maharashtra move to limit debt