THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Even as the factual report of the bar bribery case prepared by the investigation officer maintained that there was evidence to prosecute Finance Minister K.M. Mani, the decision to close the case was taken by the officer himself as he was convinced of the serious lapses in the investigation.
It is learnt that Vigilance director Vinson M. Paul had pointed out serious contradictions in evidence and lapses in the investigation and directed the investigation officer, SP R. Sukesan, to re-examine and give the final report to the court.
The Vigilance director did not direct him to file the closure report. But the investigation officer was convinced of the lapses and decided to file it.
The officer himself had admitted the lapses on his part to the Vigilance senior officials and maintained that he was carried away by the general assumption that Mr Mani took bribe,” reliable sources told DC.
The Vigilance director prepared the report on the basis of the observations made by legal advisor C.C. Agustine and ADGP (Vigilance) Shaik Darvesh Saheb.
One major lapse pointed out by the Vigilance director was the errors in framing the questionnaire for conducting the lie detection test of Ambily, driver of bar owner Biju Ramesh.
Though Ambily did not specifically mention in his statement to the Vigilance that it was Rs 35 lakh in the packet that was allegedly handed over to Mr Mani in Thiruvananthapuram, in the questionnaire it was specifically asked whether the packet contained Rs 35 lakh.
Similarly, in the questionnaire the venue of transaction was mentioned as ‘Cliff House’ which is the chief minister’s official residence. “There were serious lapses that weaken the prosecution of the case. The investigation officer had also admitted these lapses,” said sources.
With regard to the investigation officer's finding that Rs 15 lakh was handed over to Mr Mani at his Pala residence on March 22, 2014, the Vigilance director had pointed out that though there was evidence indicating that one bar owner entered Mr Mani’s house with the cash, there was no evidence that the cash was handed over to Mr Mani.
“With the available evidence it can’t be inferred that cash was handed over to Mr Mani,” Vigilance sources said.
Though the investigation officer came to the conclusion that Mr Mani deliberately delayed the cabinet decision on issuing bar licence so as to pressurise the bar owners for bribe, the Vigilance director pointed out in his report that there was no solid evidence like cabinet minutes to prove that it was following Mr Mani’s demand that the decision on the matter was delayed.
Moreover, any Cabinet decision is the collective decision of all members. Sources in the Vigilance also said that the whole incident has cast a shadow over the bureau.
