Kerala HC tells govt to clarify how order on prosecution sanction was served to accused — Cashew

Kochi: The high court has sought clarification from the state on the manner in which the July 2 govt order, which had sanctioned prosecution of the accused in the Cashew Corporation graft case and contained adverse remarks on the court’s intervention, was served on the accused persons.

Ratheesh, however, had resigned from all three posts on Aug 3 while the petition was pending before the court. On Wednesday, after perusing the report, the bench observed that although it stated that copies of the order had been dispatched to the accused persons on July 2 itself, it did not disclose the mode of dispatch. The bench further adjourned the matter to Sept 11.

Justice A Badharudeen, noting that the vigilance report on the matter did not disclose this, directed vigilance DSP Vinod Kumar P to file an additional report within seven days detailing how the order was dispatched. The court was considering a petition filed by K M Shajahan of Thiruvananthapuram challenging the continuation of K A Ratheesh, former MD of the corporation and the second accused in the case, in three key posts under the state govt. The bench had subsequently sought a reply from the authorities on how the order was provided to Chandrasekharan. The bench further observed that prosecution sanction is a matter between the govt/sanctioning authority and the person who sought the sanction and has nothing to do with the accused persons. “Here, an order with adverse remarks against the court had been issued and the same had been dispatched to the accused person to convene a press meeting. It’s a very serious matter. Had the order been dispatched to the accused either by registered post or by WhatsApp or email,” the court orally asked. The case arose after the CBI repeatedly sought prosecution sanction against the accused persons in a case alleging large-scale corruption in the import and purchase of cashew nuts by the corporation. The requests were declined despite the HC having directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter after applying its mind to the relevant materials. the govt issued an order granting prosecution sanction that contained adverse remarks on the court’s intervention While a contempt case was pending. Though the order was subsequently recalled and a fresh order was issued after omitting the alleged remarks, the impugned order remains the subject matter of the present case.

During the previous hearing, the bench had noted that Cashew Corporation former chairman R Chandrasekharan, the first accused in the case, had convened a press meet with the impugned govt order even before it was presented before the court for approval.