Kochi: The Kerala High Court has criticised the Vigilance department in the bar bribery case after two different counsel appeared on its behalf.
When the case came up for hearing, the special prosecutor as well as a senior government pleader representing the director-general of prosecutions appeared for the prosecution. The court criticised the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and directed the investigating officer P.R. Sarish, Inspector, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, who filed two statements through two different counsel to appear in person on March 27.
The court directed the VACB to 'let the scientific investigation in the bar bribe case go on and let a report come.' The VACB informed that it was not in a position to report anything as regards the materials so far collected. Hence, the court granted it permission to continue the scientific examination. It was clarified that in view of the dispute regarding the genuineness of the audio conversations involved, things will have to be examined scientifically before proceeding further in the matter. "Let the officer make earnest efforts and take prompt steps to obtain a proper and satisfactory report on the scientific aspects," the court held.
It also directed him to explain how he happened to file such statements, or under what circumstances he happened to file the two statements. "The investigating officer requires to be dealt with. This sort of irresponsible procedure cannot be allowed," the court observed.
It added that 'such games' cannot be allowed in the court. "As an investigating officer, he must be honest, sincere and responsible. After having signed a statement on March 1, he should have informed the director-general of prosecutions about such a statement when he signed a second one on March 1.
There were two statements of objection filed by the investigating officer; one dated March 1 filed through the special prosecutor, and the other filed by the senior government pleader attached to the DGP's office on March 6.
The special prosecutor appointed by the state claimed that he was assigned to conduct the case.
He made it clear that he has no special interest in the case. After the government issued the appointment order, the investigating officer had come to his office and held discussion regarding the case.
Based on the discussion he filed the statement he submitted. The govt pleader submitted that the director-general of prosecutions had granted consent to the government for appointing a special prosecutor for conducting the case in the trial court and not in the High Court.
