IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 2489 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15082/2009 Dated 18/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ M.R.REGHUCHANDRABAL, FORMER MINISTER OF EXCISE, `ASRAMA', T.C.23/491/00, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MS. D.P.RENU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., VIGILANCE (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU SPECIAL CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. K. MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. NO. 2489 OF 2009 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FACTUAL REPORT. ANNEXURE II (a) :TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ISSUED IN AN APPEAL FILED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ANNEXURE II (b) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSALATION OF ANNEXURE II (a) ANNEXURE II (c) : TRUE COPY OF LEETER DATED 19.08.2009 BY VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. ANNEXURE II (d) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSACTION OF ANNEXURE II (c) ANNEXURE III : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.05.2009 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 2489 OF 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 14th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. The appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2009. The writ petition came to be filed challenging Ext. P1 order passed by the second respondent dated 07.05.2009 issued in pursuance of circular note of the Minister in-charge of Home, Vigilance and Tourism, wherein he directed the 3rd respondent - the Director, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, to investigate the expenditure of the appellant between the period 1991 - 1996, when he was a Minister for Excise and MLA. After serious contest, the matter came to be disposed of, dismissing the writ petition. It is also pertinent to mention that there was a specific direction not to implead the Minister as an additional respondent. The learned Single Judge raised several points for consideration in the writ petition, based on the pleadings of the parties. They are as follows : (i) Whether State Government superintendence over a case being investigated by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau? (ii) Whether the Government is competent to order further investigation ? and (iii) When does an investigation ends ? W.A No. 2489 of 2009 :2: 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appeal came to be filed, contending that, the investigation went on for about 10 years and during the said period eight senior police officers of the Vigilance department revealed that it was a case where 'mistake of fact' principle could be applied. In other words, the opinion of the said senior police officers was, the order of reinvestigation was based on a 'mistake of fact'. It is also contended that in pursuance of Ext. P10, Director of Vigilance had not issued any order for further investigation after Ext. P6 approving the factual report to refer the case as 'mistake of fact'. According to the appellant, however, in pursuance of impugned Ext. P1 order, investigation continued for some time, which is totally illegal and void. On the other hand, there was no order by the Vigilance Director either for re- investigation or further investigation in the matter. Therefore, according to the appellant, the observation of the learned Single Judge that the Director of Vigilance after accepting the opinion of the Government has ordered a re-investigation was baseless and incorrect. 3. After admission of the appeal, during the pendency of the appeal, the State Government i.e. Under Secretary, Vigilance Department - representing the State, filed a statement dated 10.12.2010, wherein it is stated as follows : W.A No. 2489 of 2009 :3: “Statement filed by the Under Sercretary, Vigilance Department for and on behalf of the 1 st Respondent in the above Writ Appeal as directed by this Hon'ble Court. The above writ appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment in WP(C) No. 15082/2009 dated 18.08.2009. The writ petition was filed by the appellant to set aside Ext. P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent directing the 3rd respondent, the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to take steps to reinvestigate the case and furnish a report in VC No.4/2001/SCT registered against the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 13 (1) (e) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Single Judge dismissed the above writ petition and allowed the respondent to conduct proper investigation in the above matter, in the interest of justice. 2. It is submitted that earlier on examining the report in detail the Government felt some discrepancies in the calculation of assets as well as expenditure of the accused officer and therefore ordered to conduct a further investigation in the above case to ascertain the exact position. 3. It is submitted that the investigation in VC No. 4/2001/SCT against the appellant had been completed and the factual report forwarded to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on 17.05.2010 by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Special Cell, Thiruananthapuram recommending to refer the case as “Mistake of Fact”. The Director Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau accepted the same and forwarded the case records and the Factual Report to the W.A No. 2489 of 2009 :4: Government for further necessary action in the above matter. 4. It is submitted that the Government have examined all the issue in detail in respect of the above case and decided to accept the recommendation of the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to refer the case as “Mistake of Fact”. In the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept the above statement and dismiss the above writ appeal. Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010”. A reading of the entire statement filed by the Under Secretary, Vigilance Department would indicate that the investigation commenced in VC No. 4/2001/SCT against the appellant had been completed and the factual report came to be forwarded to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB in short) on 17.05.2010 by the concerned Superintendent of Police, of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram recommending to refer the case as “mistake of fact”. It is further clear that the Director concerned after accepting the said report as a case of mistake of fact forwarded the case record and factual report to the Government for necessary action. According to the statement of Under Secretary, the Government after examining all the issues in detail decided to accept the recommendation of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to refer the case as mistake of facts. In view of the decision of the Government on the W.A No. 2489 of 2009 :5: recommendation of the concerned authorities of VACB to categorize the case as a case of 'mistake of fact', the investigation against the appellant herein did not end up with filing of any charge sheet or initiation of any action for the so called allegation of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known source of income. In view of the statement of the Under Secretary seeking acceptance of the statement and dismissal of the writ appeal in the light of details therein, though the learned Single Judge raised several points and answered those points as stated above against the appellant herein, we need not to reconsider the points raised in the writ petition and the same could be discussed elaborately in an appropriate case. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Appeal in the light of above observations. Sd/ MANJULA CHELLUR , Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/ P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd