THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The request to drop prosecution proceedings against former Finance Minister K.M. Mani in the bar bribery case was filed by none other than Vigilance SP R. Sukesan, the investigating officer, after getting the final nod from the then Vigilance director, Mr N. Shankar Reddy. But, in his affidavit submitted to the Vigilance court here on Saturday, Mr Sukesan alleged that Mr Reddy had derailed the bribery probe and pleaded that a further probe be ordered to bring out the truth.
When contacted, Mr Reddy told DC that he was innocent of the charge and that his entire involvement in the probe as the head of the Vigilance was before the court in the form of the case diary and the detailed final report submitted by Mr Sukesan. “Let there be a free and fair probe”, said Mr Reddy. However, police sources were shocked by the development as it raised questions on the Vigilance department and the credibility of the anti-corruption mechanism, especially when the investigating officer, who changed his stance twice on the “involvement” of Mr Mani, has turned against the then Vigilance chief.
Sources say Mr Sukesan could have raised the issue one month ago when the Vigilance advocate submitted in the court that the final report had been filed, clearing Mr Mani, and the case could be reviewed on the basis of any fresh evidence. Mr Reddy came in to the picture after he took over as the Vigilance chief from Mr Vinson M. Paul. By then, the Vigilance Court had rejected Mr Paul’s move to close the bar bribery probe against Mr Mani for want of evidence. This was based on Mr Paul’s inference, rejecting Mr Sukesan’s recommendation to prosecute Mr Mani.
Mr Reddy perused the case diary and pointed out lapses, especially holes in the probe and discrepancies or lack of evidence. After re-verification, Mr Sukesan submitted his final report to Mr Reddy, seeking his permission to approach the Vigilance court to drop the prosecution against Mr Mani. Which shows that both Mr Sukesan and Mr Reddy were on the same page with regard to the conclusion of the case. The onus is now on Mr Sukesan to take the unprecedented case to its logical conclusion.
