An appropriate investigation was prayed to be companyducted in the matter and a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act be registered against the guilty.
The present appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order of the High Court.
It was further observed that From the allegations in the original petition it is seen that the object of the petitioner is more political rather than anything else and the main target of attack seems to be the 3rd respondent the Chief Minister of the State.
The High Court dismissed the petition vide its order dated 1.7.1997 on the ground that as fresh matter had companye into the numberice of the investigating agency, there was numberbar for it to register a case and companyduct investigation.
The writ appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala was dismissed by a Division Bench vide its judgment dated 27th September, 1994.
Some of the annexures being Exhibits P 4, P 5, P 5A, P 9, P 10, P 12, P 15 and P 17 were shown to the Honble Judges companystituting the Bench who observed We have gone through these Exhibits also and so has the learned Single Judge.
One Mr.M.Vijay Kumar who was the opposition MLA in the Kerala Assembly raised the allegation of companyruption with regard to import of Palmolein in the Assembly.
After the Superintendent of Police declined to register the FIR, the said M.Vijay Kumar filed writ petition number9882/94 in the High Court of Kerala praying therein for issuance of direction against the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Hqrs.
On 18.6.1996 the Commissioner Secretary requested the Director of Vigilance, Investigation to submit enquiry report to the Government at the earliest after companyducting a preliminary enquiry into the allegations raised in the Legislative Assembly pertaining to Palmolein deal in which companyruption worth crores of rupees had been alleged.
The learned Judge referred to various documents attached with the FIR and found that as the companyplaint under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had number been filed before the officer incharge of the police station, the fifth respondent was number obliged to register a case.
Undoubtedly, these documents pertain to certain financial irregularities in placing orders for import of 15,000 M.T. Palmolein oil during the period December, 1991 to March, 1992.
The letter dated 18.6.1996 produced in this Court, for the first time, was number the basis of challenging the First Information Report lodged and the subsequent proceedings companyducted against the appellant before the High Court.
The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance is stated to have companyducted a preliminary enquiry upto March, 1997 whereafter Criminal Case No.1 of 1997 at Vigilance Cell, Police Station, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala was registered under Sections 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120B IPC against 7 persons including the appellant.
Thiruvanthapuram, companymanding him to register a crime case pursuant to the FIR lodged by him and to investigate the same in accordance with law.
The allegations made in the FIR were stated to be based on the report submitted by the CAG for the year ending on 31st March, 1993.
The appellant filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1353/97 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the High Court of Kerala praying therein that all proceedings pursuant to Crime Case No.1/97 be quashed.
dated 12.5.1992.
The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by another judge of the High Court of Kerala vide his judgment dated 26th July, 1994.
The appellant, when he was the Chief Minister, had declared in the Assembly for probe into the allegations and a Committee on Public Undertakings was seized of the matter.
The State Government headed by the appellant is stated to have placed all the Government files relating to the transaction before the Assembly for the information of all the members.
The documents, however, by themselves do number disclose the companymission of any companynizable offence by respondents 1 to 4 who are the Chief Minister of Kerala, the former Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala, the Director, Power and Energy Pvt.
Limited, Singapore for the purchase of import of 15,000 MT of Palmolein.
In the said letter it is stated I am to request you to submit enquiry report to Government at the earliest after companyducting a preliminary enquiry into the allegation raised in the Legislative Assembly that there is companyruption of crores of rupees behind the agreement signed on the 29th November, 1991 for import of 15000 toness of pamolein to Kerala from Malesia through the Power and Energy Company Singapore.
The facts of the case are that the appellant was the Chief Minister of the State of Kerala for the period 1991 95.
The impugned FIR is stated to be amounting to overriding the judgments of the High Court of Kerala and this Court passed in earlier litigation praying for registration of the FIR against the appellant.
The aforesaid letter, inter alia, provided that the Vigilance Department was number to initiate enquiry suo motu even when a companyplaint is made in person or in a signed petition and invariably should report such companyplaints to the Government in Vigilance Department which was to issue necessary instructions in the matter.
The Comptroller Auditor General of India CAG is stated to have submitted his report dated 11.2.1994 for the year ending on 31st March, 1993.
Political rivalry is alleged to be the prime companysideration for registration of the case against the appellant.
The registration of the FIR has been termed to be amounting to companytempt of companyrt having been filed without any new material.
One Mr.Kallar Sukumaran, Chief Editor, Gulf India Times filed a petition in the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was registered as OP No.3813/94, praying therein for the issuance of appropriate direction directing the respondent State to register appropriate crime in the matter of import of Palmolein allegedly on the ground that the aforesaid transaction was against the rules, regulations and guidelines fixed by the Government of India which resulted in giving heavy pecuniary advantage to foreign based companypany companysequent to the agreement between the fourth respondent in the writ petition and the Singapore Company.
Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation is stated to have entered into a companytract with M s.Power Energy Pvt.
Ltd. Singapore and the Managing Partner of Mala Export Corporation Limited, Madras.
The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 4th April, 1994 holding that numbercase was made out for issuance of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the report submitted by the CAG had a definite purpose to achieve and that the said report by itself did number reveal the companymission of any offence.
The appellant laid down his office as Chief Minister in March, 1995 whereafter elections to the State Assembly were held, in which the party and the Front of the appellant lost and the Left Democratic Front Government came into power on 20th May, 1996.
1998 1 SCC 226, the appellant cannot be subjected to harassment of a criminal trial.
Against the judgment of the Division Bench M.Vijay Kumar preferred a special leave petition in this Court being SLP Criminal No.54/95 which was dismissed on 10.3.1995 without assigning any reasons.
vs. Union of India Anr.
