The Kerala High Court on October 10 ordered the release of ₹47,35,500 seized from the residence of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leader K.M. Shaji by the Vigilance as part of the investigation into the disproportionate assets case registered against him, on furnishing a bank guarantee and executing a bond for the amount.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. passed the directive while allowing a petition filed by Mr. Shaji against the Kozhikode Vigilance order rejecting his plea for releasing the amount.
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) had registered the case based on a preliminary inquiry report which found that he amassed wealth beyond his known sources of income by a margin of 166% during the period from June 1, 2011 to October 31, 2020. During a search at his house at Ottathengumanal, Alavil, Kannur, ₹46,35,500 was found concealed under a fully covered cot in the bedroom and the remaining ₹1,00,000 was found in a cupboard in the same room.
In his petition, Mr. Shaji said that he was a candidate in the Azhikode constituency during the Assembly election held in April 6, 2021. He contended that the amount was collected as part of a decision taken at a UDF meeting on March 16, 2021 to raise funds to meet the expenses for the elections. The money was kept in the election camp office of the petitioner which functioned at his house.
The Vigilance Court, while rejecting his plea for releasing the amount, had prima facie found that none of the receipts for the amount were properly authenticated. It was evident that even after the elections, the petitioner had received contributions towards poll expenses. The Vigilance judge also found that the explanation offered by the petitioner that the amounts were the contribution received from the general public towards election expenses was not tallying with the declaration of the expenses he made before the Election Commission.
Allowing Mr. Shaji’s petition, the High Court observed that Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 permits any person against whom proceedings are initiated to offer security in lieu of attachment, and if the court concerned is satisfied that the security offered by such person is reasonable and sufficient, the attachment can be lifted.
The court further observed that the amount can be recovered if it is found during the trial that the petitioner is found guilty in the case.
