'Unnecessary Corruption Probe May Blemish Public Servant's Reputation': Kerala HC While Rejecting Plea Against CM Vijayan In CMRL Scam

While dismissing the petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the alleged CMRL scam, the Kerala High Court observed that unnecessary corruption investigation into a public servant may cause a blemish on is career or reputation."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 the society."Kuzhalnadan had alleged that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) paid Rs. 5 Lakh per month to Veena Thaikkandiyil and Rs. 3 lakhs per month to her company Exalogic Solutions under the fake head of obtaining IT and Marketing Consultancy Services, when rather it was gratification to obtain favourable decisions from the Chief Minister.He had approached the Court in revision, after the Vigilance Court refused order probe in the matter.In his 59-page judgment, Justice K. Babu observed that Kuzhalnadan could not place any 'facts' constituting the offence and had leveled the allegations based on mere suspicions. “… the complainant could only place certain materials highlighting 'suspicions' based on the allegations in the complaint and 'not facts' constituting the offences alleged.”The Court however clarified that Kuzhalnadan is not precluded from filing a fresh complaint with adequate materials in the future. It also quashed the Vigilance Court's observation that political motive might have triggered the petitioner for initiation of the prosecution. The Court held that such an observation was unwarranted. It said,"One of the essential facets of criminal justice administration is the initiation of criminal proceedings by the citizen or member of polity for the purpose of punishment of an offender in the interest of the 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 certain statements made by the Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of the CMRL to allege that Veena and her company has not provided any work or service to their expectations till date. These statements were allegedly made to the Interim Board for Settlement under the Income Tax Act. The DGP had submitted before the Court that basis of the said statements were entries made in a diary not maintained in the regular course of business and it is not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. The Court accepted this argument. It said that it cannot look into inadmissible material to take cognizance of an offence, especially when there was no other material.Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet: 588 of 2024Case Title: Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 215Click Here To Read/ Download Order

'Unnecessary Corruption Probe May Blemish Public Servant's Reputation': Kerala HC While Rejecting Plea Against CM Vijayan In CMRL Scam

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags