High Court of Kerala
P. UBAID, J.
Jiji Thomson - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala, represented by The Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos. 990 of 2013, 139, 198, 199 & 372 of 2014 & Crl. M.C. No. 1013 of 2013
Decided On: 08-01-2015
1. "Palmolein" is still live in the socio-political field in Kerala and has been under judicial process for about two decades. What lead to the so called Palmolein case, which is still under prosecution process, is a decision taken by the Government in power in October 1991 to import some quantity of Palmolein from Singapore to meet the urgent requirements of the people in the State of Kerala in connection with some festival. The irregularities, illegalities and improprieties involved in the said government decision and the consequent import of Palmolein were detected by the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1996, and a vigilance probe was ordered in March 1997. Thus commenced in 1997, undergone various contentious pre-trial proceedings at different levels in different courts; from the trial level to the apex level, the Palmolein prosecution strived to reach the natural culmination by a fair and impartial trial process, but the prosecution process is still midway. At different stages of the prosecution one or the other party, or the interveners who intruded in the prosecution process as representatives of the people took up the matter before this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and such interventions even lead to some reported decisions concerning many legal aspects involved in the said prosecution. Whenever any measure is taken or any decision or order is made by the court, one or the other would challenge it upto the apex level, and thus the prosecution has still been pending. Nobody can, in fact be blamed for the delay, and the accused cannot be heard to contend that in view of such delay for about two decades the whole prosecution will have to be closed by way of withdrawal or otherwise. The accused had also contributed to the said delay. This aspect is incidentally mentioned because delay is also one of the grounds urged by the prosecution in this proceeding.
2. The accused involved in the Palmolein case are the bureaucrats at the secretary level, the ministers in power at that time, and also the intermediaries and importers who helped and managed import of Palmolein as decided by the government. Late Sri.K.Karunakaran, the Chief Minister of Kerala in power in 1991, with the junction of then minister for Civil Supplies, Sri.T.H Mustafa and some Government Secretaries took a decision to import 30000 metric tonnes of Palmolein from Singapore, to meet the requirements of the people of Kerala in connection with some festival. This decision lead to the present prosecution.
3. The prosecution case is that the then Chief Minister, late Sri.K.Karunakaran got this decision approved by cabinet, without discussing and disclosing the real facts concerning the said import, and thus imported that much quantity of Palmolein through the exporter, Power and Energy Ltd., Singapore, with the assistance of Mala Export Corporation, Chennai, without inviting global tenders and totally in violation of the Store Purchase Rules, with the object of making unlawful benefits, and thus causing heavy loss to the state exchequer. The then Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, and also the Secretary to the Civil Supplies Department happened to be prosecuted along with the ministers and others, as the bureaucratic heads who involved in the process of import without complying with the provisions of the Store Purchase Rules and without inviting global tenders. On detection of the irregularities and the unholy involvement of the ministers and secretaries in 1996 by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee of the Kerala State Legislative assembly conducted an enquiry into the alleged irregularities and illegalities. On enquiry, the Public Accounts Committee found out something vicious in the alleged deal made in haste without inviting global tenders and without complying with the provisions of the Store Purchase Rules, and this fact was reported to the Government. On getting the said report, the Government orde
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala [2003 (1) KLT 42]
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar [AIR 1987 SC 877]
Nandakumar v. State [2008 (2) KLT 913]
State of Kerala v. V.Padmanabhan Nair [1999 (5) SCC 690]
Dineshkumar v. Airport Authority of India [2011 (4) KLT 865 SC]
State v. Gopakumar [1988 (1) KLT 924]
Rajender Kumar Jain v. State [(1980) 3 SCC 435]
Subhash Chander v. The State (Chandigarh Admn) & Others [AIR 1980 SC 423]
Vinod v. State of Kerala & Another [2013 (2) KHC 895]
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.