The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 8) granted a final opportunity to the investigating officer to complete probe into Microfinance Fraud Case within one month and file final report.

Justice A. Badharudeen was considering pleas registered in 2020 seeking appointment of a Special Investigation Team headed by an efficient officer to investigate into the crime registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) relating to the SNDP micro finance fraud case.

The case relates to the alleged misappropriate of Rs. 15.85 crores of government funds under the Micro Finance Scheme. A crime was registered in 2016 and it is alleged that the officers of the SNDP Yogam and former Managing Directors of Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. (KSBCDC) were involved in the scam.

Today, the public prosecutor submitted before the Court that bona fide efforts are being taken by the investigating officer to complete probe. He sought one month's time to finish investigation. It was also told that the officer is heading the investigation into the Sabarimala gold theft case.

The petitioners' counsel Advocate D. Anil Kumar, on the other hand, submitted that the crime was registered in 2016 and that the present investigating officer, S. Sasidharan IPS, was appointed in 2024. He further pointed out that on prior occasions also, several extensions were sought by the officer since he was entrusted with the case.

He filed an interim application seeking a direction to change the investigating officer. The application highlights the Court's previous order to complete the probe within 3 weeks or that it would be constrained to consider entrusting another investigating officer.

The petitioner has suggested the name of Jayanth Jaganathan IPS DIG to take over the investigation. The petitioners' counsel also suggested that an affidavit be filed in the case explaining the steps taken in the case since final report has been filed in only one out of around 124 cases.

The prosecutor then sought time to file a counter in the application.

Hearing the case today, Justice Badharudeen orally remarked that the requirement of sanction is standing in the way of prosecution of genuine cases: "Sanction is standing in the way, defeating genuine prosecution."

The judge orally said that the officers, who are supposed to grant sanction, are also arrayed in other vigilance cases and that it appears that there is a reciprocal arrangement to deny sanction. He orally added that sanction must be granted if there are prosecution materials and that sanctioning authority must not take adamant stands but must pass reasoned orders.

The case is now posted after one month.

Case No: WP(C) No. 14599 of 2020 and Crl.MC No. 5539/2020

Case Title: M.S. Anil v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case

Counsel for the petitioners: D. Anil Kumar & O.V. Maniprasad, Jose Antony, S. Shiv Shankar