New Delhi: Challenging the Kerala High Court's order upholding the discharge of chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan and two other accused in the SNC-Lavalin corruption case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has submitted in the Supreme Court that the lower court endorsed the acquittal without looking into the conspiracy angle in the case.
The agency in its appeal sought an interim order quashing the High Court verdict.
Following are the key arguments made by the lawyer representing the CBI:
• There were strong and definite evidence against former power secretary K Mohanachandran, Pinarayi Vijayan, and ex-joint secretary A Francis for their role in the deal. Also there was ample material to prima facie show criminal conspiracy, but which may have been appreciated only at the stage of trial.
• On one hand, the High Court assessed that that there was concrete evidence against the accused, but on the other, it acquitted three of them without looking into their nexus with the company and the other accused. The court’s judgment was unfair and unjust.
• The court should have examined the legal aspects of the case, instead, it focused on finding fault with the charge-sheet.
• The High Court, which had decided to examine certain matters related to the case during the trial stage, exonerated three accused even before the commencement of the trial.
• The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, reappraised the factual findings while considering the verdict of the first appellate court, thus robbing the latter of it rights.
• The charge-sheet was prepared based on the evidence gathered by the investigation team. However, the High Court accused the CBI of employing a pick-and-choose policy in arraigning certain persons. In fact, it was the court which adopted such a policy by ordering the acquittal of certain accused, ignoring the strong evidence provided by the investigating agency.
• Instead of examining whether there was any scope to continue proceedings against the accused, both the High Court and the trial court chose to pronounce verdict after scrutinizing the evidence.
