Special Judge Went Into Mini Trial At Cognizance Stage: MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan Opposes Dismissal Of Complaint In CMRL Pay-Off Case
Manju Elsa Isac
20 July 2024 11:45 AM GMT
In the CMRL Pay-Off Case, MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan yesterday argued that the Special Judge (Vigilance) went into a mini-trial to exonerate the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan of all the allegations at the stage of taking cognizance of the complaint, without even examining him.
Justice K Babu was hearing the review petition filed by MLA Mathew challenging the decision of Special Judge (Vigilance) dismissing his complaint against the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena Thaikandiyil. The petitioner argued that CMRL gave payments of Rs. 1.72 Crore to Veena's Exalogic Solutions to get favourable decisions from the Chief Minister.
The petitioner submitted that when a Magistrate receives a complaint under Section 190 of CrPC, he shall examine the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of CrPC while taking cognizance of the offence. He said that the Special Judge did not examine the complainant before dismissing the petition.
Further, it was submitted that Instead of following the procedure laid down in the CrPC, the court accepted a report from the Public Prosecutor and relied on it to make its decision. The petitioner argued that the public prosecutor cannot make submissions at the stage of taking cognizance. The Court only had to see if the alleged offence was made out from the complaint and not conduct a mini-trial at this stage. The counsel also submitted that the court exonerated the Chief Minister from all the allegations without seeking any information from the complainant on those allegations.
The petitioner added that the Interim Board for Settlement-II, New Delhi while allowing the settlement application filed by CMRL observed that the payments made to Exalogic Solutions cannot be considered bonafide payment. The petitioner submitted that since this observation was made by a quasi–judicial body, it becomes a juridical fact that the Special Judge must have considered.
The Special Judge remarked that the complaint was politically motivated. The petitioner argued that the Special Judge should not impute motives to the complainant.It was stated that the Special Judge only had to assess if the offence was made out by the complainant. It was argued that it does not matter even if the complaint is made by a person from a different political ideology. The petitioner quoted Subrahmanian Swamy v Manmohan Singh (2012) where the right of a private citizen to file a complaint against a corrupt public servant was equated with his right to access the Court to set the criminal law in motion against a corrupt public official.
The Case is next posted on 26th of July.
Case Title: Dr. Mathew Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet 589/ 2024
