DVAC gives clean chit to Rajenthra Bhalaji in wealth case
Bench irked by agency’s ‘detailed’ probe instead of a preliminary inquiry; wonders how it expects HC to drop all proceedings based on the report
14/12/2019 , Mohamed Imranullah S., CHENNAI
K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) has given a clean chit to Minister for Milk and Dairy Development K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji after holding “preliminary inquiry” into a complaint alleging that he amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income ever since he held the post of vice-president of Tiruthangal town panchayat (now a municipality) in Virudhunagar district in 1996.
However, a Division Bench of Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and R. Hemalatha on Friday doubted whether a 754-page report submitted by the DVAC could be termed as the outcome of a preliminary inquiry whose object was only to find out whether any cognizable offence had been made out in the complaint or not.
They said the police officers appear to have conducted a “detailed investigation in the guise of conducting a preliminary inquiry.” The judges failed to understand how the DVAC could expect the High Court to drop all proceedings on the basis of an exhaustive investigation conducted without even registering a First Information Report. “If your officers do not understand the difference between a preliminary inquiry and a regular investigation, we are helpless,” Justice Sathyanarayanan told State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan who represented the DVAC. Appearing for the Minister, senior counsel I. Subramanian and M. Ajmal Khan said what had been done was only a preliminary inquiry and the investigators had to collect statements of witnesses and documentary evidences as per the DVAC manual.
Judge slams DVAC
Justice Sathyanarayanan questioned as to how the DVAC could give a clean chit to the Minister who was found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his income though the unaccounted amount was less than 10%.
Later, the judges adjourned the case to January 23 since some of the case records were yet to be forwarded from the Madurai Bench of the High Court, where the case was filed, to its principal seat in Chennai.
Bench irked by agency’s ‘detailed’ probe instead of a preliminary inquiry; wonders how it expects HC to drop all proceedings based on the report
14/12/2019 , Mohamed Imranullah S., CHENNAI
K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) has given a clean chit to Minister for Milk and Dairy Development K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji after holding “preliminary inquiry” into a complaint alleging that he amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income ever since he held the post of vice-president of Tiruthangal town panchayat (now a municipality) in Virudhunagar district in 1996.
However, a Division Bench of Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and R. Hemalatha on Friday doubted whether a 754-page report submitted by the DVAC could be termed as the outcome of a preliminary inquiry whose object was only to find out whether any cognizable offence had been made out in the complaint or not.
They said the police officers appear to have conducted a “detailed investigation in the guise of conducting a preliminary inquiry.” The judges failed to understand how the DVAC could expect the High Court to drop all proceedings on the basis of an exhaustive investigation conducted without even registering a First Information Report. “If your officers do not understand the difference between a preliminary inquiry and a regular investigation, we are helpless,” Justice Sathyanarayanan told State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan who represented the DVAC. Appearing for the Minister, senior counsel I. Subramanian and M. Ajmal Khan said what had been done was only a preliminary inquiry and the investigators had to collect statements of witnesses and documentary evidences as per the DVAC manual.
Judge slams DVAC
Justice Sathyanarayanan questioned as to how the DVAC could give a clean chit to the Minister who was found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his income though the unaccounted amount was less than 10%.
Later, the judges adjourned the case to January 23 since some of the case records were yet to be forwarded from the Madurai Bench of the High Court, where the case was filed, to its principal seat in Chennai.
No comments:
Post a Comment