Justice A Badharudeen issued the interim order after examining whether permission from the Backward Classes Development Department was legally required before prosecution could proceed. The ruling removes a procedural obstacle that investigators had identified while preparing to submit their findings to the courts concerned.
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had informed the High Court that chargesheets were ready in several cases but had not been filed because the question of prosecution sanction remained unresolved. The court has been supervising the investigation following complaints about delays in proceedings.
The dispute concerned the application of the Prevention of Corruption Act to individuals associated with SNDP Yogam and former officials of the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation (KSBCDC), which provided loans under the programme. The court accepted the state government’s position that the sanction being sought was not necessary.
State Attorney Anoop V Nair had argued that SNDP Yogam was not a nodal agency of the Backward Classes Development Department and that loans were advanced to the organisation in its capacity as a non-governmental organisation. The organisation was authorised to distribute the funds to beneficiaries under the microfinance arrangement.
The department had separately informed the court that sanction was not required for private individuals named in the case. A government order issued in September recorded that Natesan and other named SNDP office-bearers were private parties rather than government officials for the purpose of departmental prosecution approval. Its position followed an earlier difference between submissions made on behalf of the government and the prosecution regarding whether formal approval was essential.
The High Court had previously asked the department’s secretary and the competent authority to consider the question of sanction. At a hearing in August, investigating officer S Sasidharan submitted a progress report covering 124 cases, while the court noted that final reports could be submitted in at least eight of them.
The latest direction means the investigating officer must now place the prepared chargesheets before the appropriate courts within the specified period, rather than wait for a separate departmental decision. Filing a chargesheet does not establish guilt; the allegations remain subject to judicial scrutiny and the accused retain their legal rights to contest them.
The proceedings arose from petitions including one filed by M S Anil, a resident of Cherthala, who complained that the investigation involving Natesan was moving slowly. Anil’s counsel argued that prosecution sanction was necessary because the accused had received financial assistance originating from government sources.
The court considered competing interpretations of the statutory requirement before delivering its interim decision. The government’s submission distinguished private office-bearers of the organisation from public servants whose prosecution may require prior approval under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The allegations concern the handling of funds provided through the KSBCDC for microfinance assistance intended to support economically disadvantaged communities. Investigators allege that money was diverted through false utilisation certificates and records relating to self-help groups that did not exist.
The alleged irregularities cover transactions between 2003 and 2014. The amount said to have been misappropriated is Rs 15.85 crore, although the allegations have not been established by a criminal court. Natesan and other individuals were named in the vigilance investigation registered in 2016.
(The article ‘Microfinance case trouble for Vellappally’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
