Defiant Mani refuses to quit over FIR in bribery case

OUR BUREAU Updated - November 29, 2017 at 06:49 PM.

FIR registered after preliminary probe into bar owner’s charge

KM Mani

State Finance Minister KM Mani has ruled out resignation after the Vigilance department filed an FIR against him in the ‘bar bribery’ case.

The Special Vigilance Cell, Thiruvananthapuram, has named Mani as the first accused after receiving legal advice to proceed in the matter.

Mani is currently in New Delhi attending a meeting of State Finance Ministers convened by the Centre.

‘Political vendetta’
Political circles here are of the view that the Minister need not tender resignation merely because an FIR has been registered against him.

Agency reports from New Delhi quoted Mani as saying that the case is as an act of political vendetta and should be allowed to run its course and that there was no precedent requiring him to relinquish office.

The case stems from an allegation by Biju Ramesh, a bar owner and working president of Kerala Bar Hotels Association, who said that Mani had taken ₹1 crore as advance for tweaking the State’s controversial excise policy.

Witness account The Vigilance charge was framed on the basis of a statement of Ramesh’s driver, who reportedly had handed over part of the money to the Minister at his residence.

It had also considered information gathered while tracking calls made during and leading up to the alleged act. The Vigilance received evidence strong enough for registering an FIR.

It also had taken cognizance of the Supreme Court directive that an FIR should be registered in bribery cases within 42 days of making the charge, which ends on Friday. As per a decision in the Lalitha Kumari vs State of Uttar Pradesh case, the investigating officer can register an FIR if he is convinced of its tenability.

Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala had held consultations with Mani in this context.

The Vigilance will now proceed to formally notify the High Court about the registration of the FIR. The high court had considered the case earlier.

Published on December 11, 2014 06:37