Vigilance officials book case against former Special Public Prosecutor

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai, has registered a case against former Special Public Prosecutor P. Seetharaman, following an inquiry into allegations of having amassed wealth by misusing his position as a public servant.

Vigilance officials said that he had acquired properties both movable and pecuniary resources and unlawfully enriched himself during his tenure as Special Public Prosecutor to the extent of ₹27,96,690 suspected to be disproportionate to his known source of income.

He was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor (Bail) Essential Commodities and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Court in 2017. His service was terminated in 2020 following the allegations.

It was said that he failed to file the final report before the special court within the mandatory period of 180 days and had allowed numerous accused in the Essential Commodities and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cases to be released on statutory bail.

It was said that he would receive a huge amount from these accused to not file the final report in the case before the special court. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 2020 had restrained him from continuing in the post and ordered a DVAC inquiry.

Vigilance officials said that there were prima facie materials on record for taking up the case for investigation under the relevant Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. An FIR was submitted to the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai.

A copy of the FIR was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption for issuing authorisation to take up the investigation in the case and collect materials in the case.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had directed the Vigilance officials to look into the details of the wealth amassed by him and his family members. “This is only one instance. We do not know how many such people are functioning like this”, the court had observed.

Source: Read Full Article