THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Two landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, one in 1996 and the other in 2009, are all set to become hurdles in the way of further inquiry ordered by Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Enquiry Commissioner into the palmolein case.Sources said some of the accused in the case are planning to approach the High Court against the Vigilance court order that specifically asked the Vigilance Department to probe the case further with specific reference to the role of Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, who was the then Finance Minister.In the Randhir Singh Rana vs State of Delhi case in 1996, Justice G N Ray and Justice B L Hansaria ruled that ‘a magistrate on his own cannot order for further investigation’ in a criminal case in which chargesheet has already been accepted."We direct him to dispose of the case either by framing the charge or discharge the accused on the basis of the materials already on record. This will be subject to the caveat that even the order be of discharge, further investigation by the police of its own would be permissible,’’ noted the order.The order was drafted by the Supreme Court with the help of advocate Sudheer Walia, who had been assigned as an amicus curie in the case.The apex court noted that a trial court can order further inquiry into a case only before accepting the charge sheet.In 2009, Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Cyriac Joseph underlined the same argument in Reeta Nag vs State of West Bengal case."Once a charge-sheet is filed under sec 173(2) CrPC and either charge is framed or the accused discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence complained of or on the application made by the investigating authorities, permit further investigation under sec 173(8). The Magistrate cannot suo motu direct a further investigation under sec 173(8) CrPC or direct a reinvestigation into a case on account of the bar of sec 167(2) of the code,’’ said the order.Legal sources pointed out that the palmolein case was similar to both the cases referred in the SC orders and hence, a reinvestigation wouldn’t be possible. The chargesheet in the palmolein case was filed in March, 2001, after four years of investigation.The same Vigilance court had accepted that chargesheet and summoned all accused, including the late K Karunakaran. After eight years, the court ordered a re-investigation as demanded by the investigating agency. But, it didn’t find anything new."As the Vigilance didn’t demand a further inquiry, the special judge couldn’t suo motu order one,’’ said an advocate on condition of anonymity.It is learnt that in the coming days, some of the seven accused will move the High Court with a prayer to quash the Vigilance court order.
Comments
0 comment