For want of evidence the investigating officer wanted to drop the case against a DySP but the Vigilance Court was not satisfied with the closure report and ordered further probe. The High Court directed the vigilance court to have a fresh look into the matter and peruse the documents.
A case against DySP Biju Stephen was booked for amassing wealth disproportionate to known source of income. The investigation did not find any incriminating evidence and the only course for the investigating officer was to file a report in the vigilance court to close the case.
But the Vigilance court turned down the request of the investigating officer and ordered further probe. This was challenged by Biju Stephen in the High Court.
The High court observed that the Vigilance court has not examined the documents, deposed the witnesses and other materials collected by the investigating officer. The High Court said there is no evidence to the effect that the Vigilance court had looked into such documents. So it is a serious flaw and hence the closure report was rejected and further probe ordered. The vigilance court should not have done so.
The High court set aside the vigilance court order and directed it to peruse the records and pass reasoned judgment as to whether further probe is necessary or not.
RELATED STORIES
%20(1).jpg?$p=ba62326&f=1x1&w=100&q=0.8)
