Kerala HC quashes Vigilance court order against ADGP Ajith Kumar in assets case

The ADGP, currently holding the post of Excise Commissioner, had approached the high court challenging the order of the special Vigilance court rejecting the clean chit given to him after the Vigilance enquiry.

Kerala HC quashes Vigilance court order against ADGP Ajith Kumar in assets case

Kerela HC

The Kerala High Court on Friday quashed the order of a special Vigilance court in Thiruvananthapuram to proceed against Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) M R Ajith Kumar in an alleged disproportionate assets case.

Quashing the Vigilance court order, a single bench of Justice A Badharudeen said the Kerala government’s sanction is required to initiate proceedings against the ADGP in the case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the court refused to quash the private complaint preferred by P Nagaraj and relegated the complaint to pre-cognizance stage, staying the petitioner can re-approach the Vigilance court if the government accorded the sanction to prosecute the ADGP.

Advertisement

The ADGP, currently holding the post of Excise Commissioner, had approached the high court challenging the order of the special Vigilance court rejecting the clean chit given to him after the Vigilance enquiry.

Advertisement

The proceedings were launched last year following allegations of corruption and hawala levelled against the ADGP by former Nilambur MLA P V Anvar and on a private complaint lodged by one P Nagaraj.

The high court had earlier stayed the proceedings before the special Judge since it felt that there were procedural irregularities in the manner in which cognizance was taken in the case. It had opined that the order of the Special Judge seemed prima facie illegal.

The special vigilance court in August had refused to accept the VACB’s closure report absolving the officer of the allegations. It held that a prima facie case existed to proceed with the complaint, which accused Ajith Kumar of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The vigilance court had also directed that the complainant and relevant witnesses be examined to take the matter forward.

Advertisement