Kerala HC Reserves Judgment On Pleas Seeking To Quash CBI FIR In LIFE Mission Case

The High Court of Kerala on Thursday reserved orders on petitions filed by the Chief Executive Officer(CEO) of LIFE Mission Project of Kerala Government and the Managing Director of Unitac Builders Ltd to quash the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging violations of the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) with respect to the contributions received from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the construction of apartments for flood victims.A single bench of Justice V G Arun reserved orders in the matter after hearing Senior Advocate K V Viswanathan (for LIFE Mission CEO), Advocate K. N Abhilash (for Unitac), Advocate Gangesh K. B (for Congress MLA Anil Akkara, the complainant) and Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar, Standing Counsel for the CBI.Submissions of LIFE MissionThe prime argument of Senior Advocate Viswanathan was that FCRA was not attracted to the allegations. LIFE Mission is not covered under Section 3 of the Act, which specifies the persons and entities prohibited from accepting foreign contributions. State governments, government agencies, statutory bodies and entities subject to CAG audit are exempted from FCRA as per the notifications of the Government of India.To highlight the objectives of the FCRA, he referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) v Union of India."It is clear that preventing foreign contribution into the political arena is the object sought to be achieved by the Act...such of those voluntary organisations which have absolutely no connection with either party politics or active politics cannot be denied access to foreign contributions", he quoted from the INSAF judgment.He submitted that there was no direct foreign contribution to the LIFE Mission. The agreement was between UAE Red Crescent and the builder Unitac Builders Ltd. As per the MoU between LIFE Mission and UAE Red Crescent, it is the latter which identifies the project proponent for the construction of homes for the rehabilitation of flood victims. The Government only gives the land.Unitac is entitled to raise bills and receive consideration for its contractual services. Such receipts do not come under the defintion of "foreign contribution" under Section 2(h) of the Act. Explanation 3 of Section 2(h) excludes the amount received by any person from a foreign source by way of fee or towards cost in lieu of goods and services rendered in the ordinary course of business.If the principal accused is not coming under FCRA, LIFE Mission can in no way be subjected to FCRA.He stressed that the FIR was an abuse of process of law initiated out of political considerations. The FIR will destabilize the humanitarian efforts of the government and will stigmatize the officials. He also pointed out that in respect of allegations of corruption, the Vigilance Bureau has already initiated an investigation. The CBI FIR, registered in haste on the complaint of Congress MLA Anil Akkara, is mala fide and unsustainable.Advocate K. N Abhilash, appearing for Santhosh Eappen, the MD of Unitac, submitted that he has been dragged into the case to settle political rivalries. Unitac received the offer after a tender by Red Crescent.The receipts are exempted under Section 4 of the Act as contributions accepted "as agent of foreign source in relation to any transaction made by such foreign source with the State Government".Submissions of Anil Akkara, Congress MLAAdvocate Gangesh, appearing for the complainant, Anil Akkara, submitted that the agreement of Unitac is with the Consulate General of the UAE. There is no authorization for the Consulate General to represent Red Crescent. But the funds came from Red Crescent.The agreement says that the money is for "services rendered" and not for "services to be rendered". So advance payment cannot be made.He further contended that though the agreement was with "Unitac Builders & Developers Ltd", funds were given to "M/s Unitac Energy Solutions Pvt Ltd".Section 3(c) of FCRA says no foreign contributions should be received by "any other body controlled or owned by the government". The amounts were received on behalf of LIFE Mission. The amounts were received on behalf of LIFE Mission. They are not saved by Explanation 3 of Section 2(h) of the FCRA.CBI's submissions.The Standing Counsel for the CBI termed the deal "underbelly transactions" and said that the MoU was an "eye wash".Referring to the statement of Santosh Eapen recorded by the CBI, he submitted that Unitac had discussions with Swapna Suresh, Sandeep and Sarit - who are now under custody in the gold smuggling case - to obtain the LIFE Mission deal.To get the project, commission was paid to them. Swapna told Unitac MD that it was a government project financed by UAE Govt and assured him that all govt approvals will be arranged by her. She demanded commission of 30% - 20% for UAE Consular General and 10% for her.It is wrong to say that Unitac got the contract after a tender process. They...

Kerala HC Reserves Judgment On Pleas Seeking To Quash CBI FIR In LIFE Mission Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags