Minister For Fisheries Anitha R. Radhakrishnan. File
Thoothukudi Principal Sessions Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking permission to assist the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) in the disproportionate assets case against Minister for Fisheries-Fishermen Welfare and Animal Husbandry Anitha R. Radhakrishnan.
The ED had filed the petition before the court to permit the petitioner to assist the prosecution and to file documents and written submission in support of the prosecution. The DVAC officials, Thoothukudi, registered an FIR under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Mr. Radhakrishnan for disproportionate assets acquired during the period May 2001 to May 2006. The final report was filed against the Minister and his family members in 2013. The trial is going on.
The DVAC submitted that the present investigation had been done in a fair and impartial manner. On a mere apprehension, it was not open for the petitioner and investigating agency to approach the court to assist the prosecution under Sections 301 (2) and 302 of Cr.P.C.. It amounted to interference in the federal structure enunciated in the Constitution and the separation of powers that had to be given to the State.
The State Public Prosecutor representing the DVAC submitted that the petitioner was neither a victim nor an aggrieved party. The petitioner was a third party and had no locus standi to assist the Public Prosecutor. Other than the Public Prosecutor no one could be allowed to conduct the prosecution especially, third party like ED, could not be permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor.
Principal Sessions Judge K. Ayyappan observed that before going into the legality of the petition, the stage of the case had to be looked into. In this case, out of the 108 witnesses 71 witnesses were examined till date and other witnesses were to be examined. Only three witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and on the date of examination of those three witnesses, Mr. Radhakrishnan was not sworn in as Minister in the Tamil Nadu government.
The DVAC was conducting the case in all fairness. The apprehension of the petitioner that being the Minister, the State had vested interest was not acceptable, the court observed.
The third party could not be permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor especially, when the Public Prosecutor was conducting the case in all seriousness and when the Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the participation of the petitioner, the ED. The contention of the petitioner was not acceptable factually as well as legally, the court observed and dismissed the petition.
