B. Kemal Pasha, J.

1. Sri. V.S. Achuthanandan, the 8th respondent herein, filed a petition before the Director of Vigilance regarding the disclosure made by the 9th respondent herein Sri. Biju Ramesh in certain T.V. Channels that the 12th respondent herein Sri. K.M. Mani, the Finance Minister, has demanded Rs. 5 crores as illegal gratification to facilitate the renewal of Bar licence, and obtained Rs. 1 crore from the members of the Kerala Bar Hotel Owners' Association during the period between 20.03.2014 and 03.04.2014 and thereby, the 12th respondent committed criminal misconduct.

2. As the 6th respondent Sri. V.S. Sunilkumar, MLA has felt that the matter was not being properly investigated into, he approached this Court through W.P.(C) No. 29856 of 2014 seeking the registration of a crime by the Vigilance Department. The Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 03.12.2014 with a direction to the Director of Vigilance to take a decision for registering an FIR or not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in tune with the decision of the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U.P. And others (2014 (2) SCC 1) rendered by the Constitution Bench.

3. It seems that even prior to the above direction of this Court, the Director had, on 04.11.2014, ordered a quick verification by the Dy. S.P. Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram in the matter. The said officer submitted a report on 06.11.2014 recommending a detailed investigation in the matter. The report was forwarded to the Director. Consequently, the Director, VACB, on scrutinising the quick verification report, directed the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau(SIU-1) to register a vigilance case for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to conduct an investigation.

4. The investigating officer conducted an investigation and prepared a factual report. At first, he submitted the factual report before the Additional Legal Adviser, Vigilance Department. The Legal Adviser, after a scrutiny, furnished an opinion that there was no evidence for demand and, therefore, the offences would not lie. Thereafter, the file was forwarded to the Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance in writing, asked the investigating officer as to whether there was any evidence for demand by the accused. Precisely, a reply was furnished by the investigating officer that "there were no direct/oral/recordical evidence to indicate any demand from the part of the accused." The Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance concluded that there was no material available to prosecute the accused since no offence was made out. With such a scrutiny report, the matter was placed before the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, which according to the petitioner, is a normal procedure in the Vigilance Department, in accordance with the Vigilance Manual.

5. The Director General of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, thereafter, approached the Attorney General of India as well as the Solicitor General of India seeking legal advice in the matter. Having responded negatively in giving the legal advice, ultimately, the Director of Vigilance obtained legal advice from two designated Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court, who were former Solicitors General of India. Based on the said legal opinions, the Director, VACB, has taken the view that there was no sufficient material to prove the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980. He gave a direction to the investigating officer in the following lines:

"From the documentary, oral and circumstantial materials presented in the factual report by the investigating officer, I am of the opinion that there is no sufficient material to prove the ingredients of S.7, S.13(1)(d)