Kochi: Giving a fillip to the state government's move to speed up the hearing of review petitions challenging the acquittal of CPM leader Pinarayi Vijayan in the Lavalin case, Kerala High Court on Friday accepted its contentions and agreed to hear the matter in the last week of February.
“I find substance in the points put forth by the government and the CBI,” Justice P. Ubaid observed and directed the High Court registry to post the case on an ideal date. “This court will take earnest efforts to hear and dispose of the case without delay,” the court held.
Both the CBI and the state contended that the trial court had crossed the limits and even practically decided the case. It was also alleged that the trial court judge had ignored the Supreme Court orders in the matter of discharging the accused from the case. “These matters require examination in depth by the court in the revision petitions,” the court said.
It also observed that premature termination of a prosecution involving huge loss caused to the public exchequer must be a matter of public concern if the allegations are true.
Some of the accused made application for discharge, but all obtained the benefit of discharge, the court pointed out.
The court was considering a plea filed by Director- General of Prosecution T. Asaf Ali seeking to post the review petitions challenging the Thiruvananthapuram CBI court’s verdict pending before the court for the last two years.
Though the court accepted the views, it made it clear that an out-of-turn hearing of Lavalin case was not possible as so many matters were pending, including 10-15-year- old appeals under the Prevention of Corruption Act. These will also be given importance as matters involving the state exchequer and public interest,” the court said.
It also granted permission to the state to implead in the revision petition filed by the CBI and closed two petitions seeking further inquiry into the scam.
When the case came up for hearing, Mr T. Asaf Ali sought to accept the arguments of the state while senior counsel M.K. Damodaran opposed the plea filed by the state and questioned its locus standi. He also produced various Supreme Court orders to prove that the state has no locus standi. The court, however, refused to accept the contentions.
During the heated arguments, Mr Damodaran asked where was the state in the last two years. The DGP countered saying “better late than never, we were waiting for the CBI to take action.”
