![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kerala |
![]() |
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Kerala
-
Thiruvananthapuram
Petitioner alleges Vakkom helped to evade stamp duty VACB to
investigate allegation Thiruvananthapuram: The Vigilance Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge here has ordered the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to investigate whether there is any truth in the allegation that the former Finance Minister Vakkom Purushothaman has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and used the money to purchase 11.5 acres of land in the name of his relatives in the district during his tenure as a public servant. Judge K. Sasidharan Nair also asked the VACB to investigate petitioner Madathi Marikar Haji’s allegation that Mr. Vakkom’s family had evaded stamp duty by deliberately undervaluing the land they had purchased in the district during December 2004 and February 2005. When Mr. Purushothaman was Finance and Excise Minister his sons Biju Purushothaman and Binu Purushothaman and his son-in-law, Rajagopal, had purchased nearly 11.5 acres at Karakulam and Vattapara. In 2006, Mr. Haji approached the vigilance court accusing Mr. Purushothaman of violating the Prevention of Corruption Act and helping his relatives evade stamp duty. The court ordered the VACB to conduct a preliminary inquiry. The VACB reported that it could not connect Mr. Purushothaman with the acquisition of property by his relatives. It recommended a Registration Department inquiry to find out whether there was any stamp duty evasion. The vigilance court dismissed Mr. Haji’s complaint on the basis of the VACB report filed by then Superintendent of Police Parameshwaran Nair. Mr. Haji challenged the court’s decision in the High Court, which ordered a detailed investigation into the allegations raised by the petitioner. The vigilance judge here conducted a direct inquiry into the matter under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He gave the VACB three months time to file its report.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|