Bar scam: Vigilance report acquitting Mani dismissed

Vigilance special court judge John K Illikkadan Thursday dismissed the final report seeking permission to close the bar scam case against Finance Minister K M Mani. Dismissing the report, the court ordered further probe in the case. The court Thursday adjudicatednine pleas seeking further probe, Biju Ramesh’s plea to consider factual report as final report and a plea requesting to accept the final report. Bar hotel association working president Biju Ramesh had alleged that Mani accepted a bribe of Rs one crore from bar owners to open the closed 418 bars.

Vigilance director Winson M Paul has decided to quit his post following court verdict ordering a further probe against K M Mani in the bar scam case. Paul, who is retiring from service on November 30, has given an application to enter on leave. Talking to reporters here, Paul said he dealt the case from within the purview of the Act. S P Sukesan will only be in charge of the further probe. There is no need for a further probe under the guidance of the vigilance director. He said that he is stepping down from the post to maintain the reputation of the vigilance. In some special circumstances, will have to stay away and that is for transparency. When asked whether he feels guilty, he said as I have not done anything wrong there is no need to feel guilty.

In the wake of the order for a further probe in the bar case, CPM state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan and opposition leader V S Achuthanandan sought the resignation of Finance Minister K M Mani. If he still continues in the post, he will have to face mass protests. A further probe against Mani, who put the investigating official under pressure to submit a favourable probe, continuing in the ministerial post would be ridiculous, said Kodiyeri.

If Mani has any self-respect, he should resign today itself, said VS.CPM-led LDF Opposition had been on a warpath demanding Mani's resignation since the scam broke out in November 2014. The case against Mani, who is the Kerala Congress (M) supremo, was registered on the basis of statements given by some of those questioned by investigators as part of a preliminary inquiry into the allegation that he had taken a hefty sum as bribe from bar owners for decisions favourable to them. The Left leaders had demanded Mani's resignation and had tried to prevent him from presenting the state budget in March 13 this year, which led to the ruling and opposition fronts coming to blows in the Assembly and the house witnessing unprecedented violence. Charges against Mani While the Vigilance had sought to end the case, many, including V.S. Achuthanandan, had demanded that the case be re-probed. Vigilance had registered a case against Mani in December, 2014, in connection with the allegations that he had accepted bribe from bar owners to renew liquor licences. However, in June, the Vigilance decided not to file a charge-sheet in the case filed against Mani by bar hotelier Biju Ramesh who alleged that the finance minister had demanded Rs 5 crore bribe as illegal gratification to facilitate the renewal of bar licenses and had obtained Rs one crore from the office-bearers of the association between Mar 20 and April 2 last year. The officials had said that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Mani had taken the bribe. Vinson M. Paul had also ordered investigating officer to file a closure report in the Vigilance court. Sukesan demanded Mani's prosecution

The fact-finding report presented by Vigilance SP and investigating officer in the case, R. Sukesan, had suggested that Mani may be prosecuted under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. However, the Vigilance Director's final report that emerged in August rejected Sukesan's contention. Vinson had stated in the final report that "from the documentary, oral and circumstantial material presented in the factual report by the Investigation Officer (IO), I am of the opinion that there is no sufficient material to prove the ingredient of section 7, 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act." "... Thus in the absence of any material whatsoever for demanding of bribe or acceptance of money, the contention of the IO that there is ample circumstantial evidence to prove the offences against Mani is not justified," the report had stated. It was understood that for taking such a decision, the Vigilance director had obtained expert opinion from two senior Supreme Court counsels, including a former Solicitor General. CPI state secretary Kanam Rajendran too sought Mani’s resignation.