.jpg)
In spite of a vigilance report clearing him, ADGP MR. Ajith Kumar was appealing a special court's order to move on with a disproportionate assets case against him.
Even though a vigilance report cleared him, Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) MR. Ajith Kumar has filed a plea in the Kerala High Court contesting a special court's decision to move forward with a disproportionate assets case against him.
The case was briefly heard by Justice A Badharudeen on Tuesday. As required by the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), the judge today questioned whether the ADGP had received the appropriate state sanction to prosecute the case.
Additionally, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) was ordered by the Court to provide an action taken statement about this matter.
The judge emphasized that the Court will be assessing whether all such procedural safeguards have been adhered with and posed a number of questions regarding the probe.
Tomorrow, the case will be heard again, and the court will probably decide whether to issue a stay or some other temporary injunction.
The LDF-backed independent MLA from Nilambur, PV Anvar, was the first to accuse the ADGP of corruption. Ajith Kumar was charged by Anvar in 2024 of illegally accumulating fortune, meddling in a gold smuggling case for financial gain, tapping phones, and engaging in unlawful timber felling.
In a press conference, the MLA further suggested that the police officer was disproportionately wealthy by accusing the ADGP of building a lavish home in Thiruvananthapuram.
Following an investigation, the ADGP was ultimately given a clean sheet by the vigilance authorities. However, this clean sheet was denied and the inquiry officials were criticized during a special court hearing on August 14.
Ajith Kumar has contested this in front of the High Court.
The VACB's detailed preliminary inquiry report, which cleared him of charges involving unlawful wealth accumulation, unlawful timber felling from government property, and profiteering from gold and hawala transactions, was unlawfully rejected by the special court, according to ADGP Kumar's plea.
Concerned that it may be irregular if a junior officer had carried out the investigation against ADGP Kumar, the Court today inquired as to whether a senior officer or a junior officer had done so.
The Court added that it must be confirmed if the government approved the submission of the final inquiry report.
However, whether appropriate sanction for prosecution had been granted under Section 17A of the PC Act is the primary point before the Court.
Did the prosecution provide their approval? The judge noted today that the action is against due procedure if the investigation was carried out without it.
The Court continued by noting that any complaint must first undergo an investigation and get Section 17A sanction for prosecution under the PC Act.
In the meantime, the complainant, PV Anvar, has also requested to be included as a party to the case. The Court stated that it would take this motion for implementation into consideration tomorrow.
Today, Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai represented Ajith Kumar.
This website is all about sharing knowledge and updating everything about Law.
