DVAC justifies non-registration of FIR against Minister Velumani
‘Investigating officer enjoys the prerogative of deciding the depth of inquiry’
24/01/2020, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT,CHENNAI
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on Thursday justified its act of having conducted a detailed preliminary inquiry, by recording statements of several witnesses and collecting various other materials, without registering a first information report against Municipal Administration Minister S. P. Velumani on two complaints of corrupt practices lodged against him regarding award of contracts by Chennai and Coimbatore corporations.
Appearing before Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and R. Hemalatha, who were seized of cases filed by R.S. Bharathi of DMK and Jayaram Venkatesan of Arappor Iyakkam seeking registration of FIR against the Minister, State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan submitted a bulky preliminary inquiry report of the DVAC in a sealed cover. When the judges asked for statements of witnesses, he submitted yet another heavy sealed cover containing the statements.
Verdicts of SC
After opening the sealed covers in the court hall and glancing through their contents, the senior judge in the Bench said it prima facie appeared as if the police had conducted a regular investigation in the guise of conducting a preliminary inquiry. To this, SPP referred to several Supreme Court verdicts on the issue and contended that it was permissible for the police to conduct a detailed preliminary inquiry without registering a FIR.
Case-by-case basis
He cited a latest decision of the apex court delivered in December last in State of Telangana versus Managipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar and claimed that it had clearly laid down the law that there could not be a set format for conducting preliminary inquiry. He also said, the manner and depth of the inquiry could be decided only on case-by-case basis. There was nothing wrong in conducting a preliminary inquiry like a full fledged investigation, he said. Mr. Natarajan also stated that the investigating officer would have the prerogative to decide how a preliminary inquiry should be conducted.
He also doubted the credentials of Mr. Venkatesan, Managing Trustee of the NGO Arappor Iyakkam, who had lodged the complaint against the minister and said, the complaint appeared to be motivated and made with the intention of maligning the reputation of the Minister.
After hearing him at length, the judges adjourned the cases to February 17 for hearing the arguments of Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the Chief Secretary, senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Greater Chennai Corporation and senior counsel AR.L. Sundaresan for Mr. Velumani in his personal capacity.
‘Investigating officer enjoys the prerogative of deciding the depth of inquiry’
24/01/2020, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT,CHENNAI
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on Thursday justified its act of having conducted a detailed preliminary inquiry, by recording statements of several witnesses and collecting various other materials, without registering a first information report against Municipal Administration Minister S. P. Velumani on two complaints of corrupt practices lodged against him regarding award of contracts by Chennai and Coimbatore corporations.
Appearing before Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and R. Hemalatha, who were seized of cases filed by R.S. Bharathi of DMK and Jayaram Venkatesan of Arappor Iyakkam seeking registration of FIR against the Minister, State Public Prosecutor A. Natarajan submitted a bulky preliminary inquiry report of the DVAC in a sealed cover. When the judges asked for statements of witnesses, he submitted yet another heavy sealed cover containing the statements.
Verdicts of SC
After opening the sealed covers in the court hall and glancing through their contents, the senior judge in the Bench said it prima facie appeared as if the police had conducted a regular investigation in the guise of conducting a preliminary inquiry. To this, SPP referred to several Supreme Court verdicts on the issue and contended that it was permissible for the police to conduct a detailed preliminary inquiry without registering a FIR.
Case-by-case basis
He cited a latest decision of the apex court delivered in December last in State of Telangana versus Managipet alias Mangipet Sarveshwar and claimed that it had clearly laid down the law that there could not be a set format for conducting preliminary inquiry. He also said, the manner and depth of the inquiry could be decided only on case-by-case basis. There was nothing wrong in conducting a preliminary inquiry like a full fledged investigation, he said. Mr. Natarajan also stated that the investigating officer would have the prerogative to decide how a preliminary inquiry should be conducted.
He also doubted the credentials of Mr. Venkatesan, Managing Trustee of the NGO Arappor Iyakkam, who had lodged the complaint against the minister and said, the complaint appeared to be motivated and made with the intention of maligning the reputation of the Minister.
After hearing him at length, the judges adjourned the cases to February 17 for hearing the arguments of Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the Chief Secretary, senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Greater Chennai Corporation and senior counsel AR.L. Sundaresan for Mr. Velumani in his personal capacity.
No comments:
Post a Comment