MOHANLAL Vs. A A POULOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is an acclaimed cine artist. On 22/7/2011, the Income Tax Department conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner herein and found four elephant tusks kept there. The matter was immediately reported to the Forest Department. It was found that the petitioner did not have the requisite licence to keep the tusks in custody. Hence, OR No.14/2012 was registered by Mekkapala Forest Station, Kodanad Forest Range.

(2.) In the meanwhile, Ext.P1 complaint was laid by the first respondent herein before the court of Vigilance and Special Court and Enquiry Commissioner (V & ACB), Muvattupuzha, against the petitioner herein and nine other persons, including the then Forest Minister. It was alleged that after the interception of the elephant tusks, no legal action was taken against the petitioner herein. Though, O.R.No.14/2012 was registered, the petitioner herein was not arrested. One Anil Kumar had submitted complaint to the City Police Commissioner, who forwarded it to the Assistant Commissioner for enquiry. The Assistant Commissioner had submitted a report. It is alleged that, no action was recommended. FIR was also not registered. The petitioner herein was not arrested in spite of lapse of 50 months. The petitioner also did not declare the possession of the tusks within the time granted by the Government. Much later, the accused had filed an application dated 14/1/2016 before the Minister for Forest to exempt him from the prosecution. It was alleged that Ext.P5 Government order was issued permitting the petitioner herein to declare the articles, which were not in accordance with law. According to the complainant, the petitioner herein is stated to have purchased the tusks from three persons arrayed as respondents 8 to 10 in the complaint. The second respondent was the then Secretary to the Government, Forest Department and third and fourth respondents in the complaint were the officials under the Forest Department. The City Police Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner were arrayed as 5th and 6th respondents. It was alleged that all of them had colluded to save the petitioner herein from criminal prosecution both for violation of the provisions of the Forest Act and the Wild Life Protection Act. It was contended that, assigning the asset of the State to an individual resulted in loss to the exchequer and consequently, amounted to a corrupt practice as provided under the provisions of Corruption Act. Hence, necessary action was sought against the respondents mentioned in the complaint.

(3.) The Special Judge (Vigilance), by Ext.P2 order held that materials on record did not disclose that the respondents 2 to 6 had actively participated in granting any benefit to the petitioner herein. However, the court held that, on perusing the complaint and the documents filed, Ext.P5 order was issued at the instance of the first respondent in the complaint, who was the then minister. It was held that under section 42, wild life warden can issue certificate of ownership only if the possession was found lawful. No proper inquiry was conducted as to how respondents 7 to 9 got into possession of the elephant tusks. It was also held that, it was at the instance of the first respondent that the file was again put up for granting an order for declaration as per the advice of the first respondent. According to the court, it was necessary to ascertain whether first respondent had in fact abused his official position as Minister in giving preferential treatment to respondents 7 to 9. Hence, the Director, VACB, Thriuvananthapauram was directed to conduct quick verification of the allegations made against the first respondent and respondents 7 to 9 therein. The above order along with Ext.P1 complaint is under challenge in this writ petition.