[ISRO Conspiracy Case] Kerala High Court dismisses plea alleging corrupt land deals between Nambi Narayanan and CBI officials

In the latest development in the decades-long ISRO espionage and conspiracy case involving scientist Nambi Narayanan, the Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed a plea by one of the investigating officers, S Vijayan, alleging corrupt transactions between Narayanan and CBI officials (S Vijayan v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.)..Justice R Narayana Pisharadi dismissed a petition filed by S Vijayan, Special Branch Investigator in 1994 and prime accused in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation for his involvement in the the wrongful incarceration and alleged custodial torture of Nambi Narayanan. "The allegations in the complaint, prima facie, do not attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 to 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (before its amendment in the year 2018)",the order stated.Vijayan had alleged that Narayanan influenced the CBI investigation against him by entering into land deals worth crores with the then investigating officials of the agency..While the court gave the liberty to Vijayan to file a fresh complaint with the right documents, it deemed it appropriate to dismiss the plea at this stage as without the same, even a preliminary enquiry of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act may cause irreparable harm to their reputations.."An unnecessary investigation or even a preliminary enquiry into an offence under the P.C Act against a public servant may cause blemish on his career and reputation. Once such a blemish is caused, it would be very difficult to erase it. What matters is not just that the complainant alleges commission of an offence. The complaint must disclose commission of an offence by some person. Investigation cannot be ordered on the basis of a complaint which is not supported by genuine materials. The Court must be satisfied that an offence is 'disclosed' by the materials produced by the complainant" .The petitioner in the instant case, S Vijayan, was the Special Branch Inspector in Thiruvananthapuram in 1994, when the events leading to the arrest of Nambi Narayanan and his alleged frame-up and custodial torture occurred.He had originally arrested one Mariam Rasheeda, a Maldivian national for overstaying in India. This incident set off a domino effect with the arrest of one Fousiya Hussain who was arrested for offences under the Official Secrets Act. Subsequently, the Kerala Government forwarded the cases to the CBI, which in turn filed a refer report in 1996 stating that the allegations of espionage were found to be false. This report was accepted despite the objection from Vijayan.Much later, in 2012, Nambi Narayanan moved the High Court to initiate action against the investigating officers of the case. Upon not receiving the reliefs sought for, vis à vis conviction of the officers, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court ..In September 2018, the Supreme Court had held that the prosecution initiated by the Kerala police against Narayanan in the mid 1990s in the ISRO espionage case was malicious and ordered a compensation of Rs. 50 lakh for Narayanan.The Court then constituted a three-member panel under retired judge, Justice DK Jain to identify those responsible for the alleged conspiracy and subsequently the Central government had requested the Court to take cognisance of the report submitted by the Jain committee.Consequently, the Supreme Court forwarded the report to the CBI as it felt that the findings of the committee deserved a thorough investigation.The CBI then opened a criminal enquiry against several former law enforcement officials allegedly involved in the police frame-up.The CBI had, after examining the Jain panel report, filed a First Information Report (FIR) marked classified at the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in July this year.On August 13, 2021, the Kerala High Court had granted anticipatory bail to four of the accused officers including S Vijayan, the petitioner. .The petitioner alleged that very close associates of Narayanan had informed him that Narayanan had bribed CBI officers who investigated and supervised the ISRO case initially from 1994-1998 by conveying property to them.This was purportedly done through the Sub-Registrar's Office, Nanguneri in Tamil Nadu in the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 2004 and 2008 by Narayanan and his benami holders.To subtantiate his claims, Vijayan provided encumbrance certificates which he averred were sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the respondents.He submitted a complaint in this regard at the Special CBI Court seeking an investigation into the allegations by the CBI but the same was rejected by the Special Judge which prompted him to approach the High Court through advocate Shabu Sreedharan..Justice Pisharadi noted several aspects of the complaint lacking in terms of the appropriateness of the documents submitted to substantiate.An application filed for invoking the power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code shall be supported by an affidavit duly sworn to by the applicant. The Court observed that the petition/complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner.Even the encumbrance certificates produced are unauthenticated copies from websites which have not been translated from Tamil. Further, encumbrance certificates issued in respect of landed properties, by themselves, are not sufficient to prove the transactions mentioned therein, the Court said.Even though a sale deed involving Narayanan from 2004 was produced later, the Court said that alone is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, especially since it is from 8 years after the initial CBI investigation..Moreover, it opined that the Special Court has given sufficient reason for rejecting the complaint at its threshold. It therefore dismissed the petition leaving liberty to Vijayan to file a fresh complaint with proper documents at the Special Court.[Read Order]