The HC had ordered VACB to prove the gains EP Jayarajan had secured in the case.

Ex Kerala Minister cant be prosecuted nepotism charges may not exist VACB informs HC
news Court Tuesday, May 30, 2017 - 09:00

Kerala State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) on Monday submitted a report stating that former Sports Minister EP Jayarajan cannot be prosecuted in the nepotism row. The VACB has reversed its earlier stand in the case.

VACB informed the Kerala High Court that the charges of nepotism and misuse of office may not apply against Jayarajan. VACB’s submission came after the High Court repeatedly asked them to prove what gains the minister secured in the case.

“On a conscious reading of the interim orders passed by this honourable Court regarding the ingredients of the offence specifically under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and in view of the discussion with the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, it may appear that the offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C.Act may not lie against the accused by taking note of the cancellation of the appointment order and also in view of the fact that the 2nd accused (Sudheer) has not assumed charge, it may appear that the 2nd accused has not gained anything,” stated the latest VACB affidavit,  reported by The Times of India.

It was in January 2017 that VACB registered a case against EP Jayarajan as the first accused and Sudheer as the second accused in the case.

In the first week of March, VACB filed an affidavit in court accusing Jayarajan of misusing his position in the appointment of his sister-in-law and Kannur MP PK Sreemathy’s son Sudheer Nambiar as the Kerala State Industrial Estate MD.

The court in April stayed any further investigation in the case, but also ordered VACB to not close the case either.

Last week the High Court came down heavily on the VACB pointing out that Sudheer’s appointment was cancelled within three days. Questioning how the case could come under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the HC observed that for such a case the public servant or somebody else must have gained some advantage. It was then the court ordered the investigating officer to give a convincing report on the issue.


Show us some love and support our journalism by becoming a TNM Member - Click here.