NEW DELHI: The Kerala Government informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it would not withdraw the Rs. 2.80-crore palmolein import case pending against former Chief Minister K. Karunakaran. The previous United Democratic Front Government had decided to withdraw the case.

Senior counsel T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, appearing for the Kerala Government, told a three-judge Bench comprising Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice D.K. Jain: "We want to continue the prosecution and we will withdraw the application seeking permission to withdraw the case."

(Meanwhile, the Kerala Cabinet decided in Thiruvananthapuram on Wednesday to annul the decision of the previous Government to withdraw the palmolein case. Chief Minister V. S. Achuthanandan told mediapersons after a Cabinet meeting that the trial before the Vigilance Special Court in the palmolein case would be revived.)

Apex court's permission

On April 20, prior to the Assembly elections, the apex court had permitted the Kerala Government to file an application before a special court in Thiruvananthapuram to withdraw the corruption case against Mr. Karunakaran. But in view of the elections, such an application was not filed before the trial court. Mr. Achuthanandan, who was then Leader of the Opposition, had questioned the decision to withdraw the case.

On Wednesday, when the matter was taken up, Mr. Iyer said the present Government would continue with the prosecution. Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr. Karunakaran, objected to this and said: "They [State] have filed an affidavit to withdraw the case. If they want to continue the case, they must file another affidavit giving reasons." In the light of this, the Bench asked Mr. Iyer to file an affidavit in this regard.

It was the contention of Mr. Karunakaran that sanction for prosecution from the competent authority was necessary even if a public servant had ceased to hold that office. Further, if he were a public servant holding a different public office on the date of taking cognisance of the offence, the sanction of the competent authority at the time of holding the public office was necessary to prosecute him.

As Railway Minister Lalu Prasad, former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and few other Ministers and former Ministers had raised similar contentions in their cases, all these petitions were posted for further hearing on August 1.

The charge against Mr. Karunakaran was that he and the other accused had caused a loss of Rs. 2.80 crore to the State exchequer on account of import of 15,000 tonnes of palmolein from Malaysia at an enhanced price during 1991-92. The special court in March 2001 held that it was necessary to obtain sanction for prosecution from the Lok Sabha Speaker for taking cognisance of the case. But on a revision petition filed by the State, the High Court on February 19, 2003 held that no sanction from the Lok Sabha Speaker was necessary and accordingly further proceedings were initiated before the special court.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail