More than a decade after the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered a case against Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam general secretary Vellappally Natesan and four others in connection with an alleged microfinance scam, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed the investigating officer to submit the final report within one month.

Justice A Badharudeen, while considering petitions filed in 2020 seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case, granted the investigating officer one last opportunity to complete the investigation and file the final report within one month.

The case dates back to July 2016, when the VACB registered an FIR against Natesan and four others over alleged irregularities in the microfinance scheme run by the SNDP Yogam.

The FIR was based on a complaint filed by the then Opposition leader V S Achuthanandan, seeking an investigation against SNDP Yogam president M N Soman, microfinance coordinator K K Maheshan and former Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation (KSBCDC) managing director N Najeeb over the alleged misappropriation of around ₹15 crore under the scheme.

The vigilance investigation, led by the then Vigilance Range SP, had found evidence of financial misappropriation involving Natesan.

According to the petition, operators of the Yogam's microfinance scheme obtained loans from the KSBCDC and nationalised banks at interest rates of five and four per cent, respectively, and allegedly disbursed them to beneficiaries at higher interest rates.

During Wednesday's hearing, the public prosecutor submitted that the investigating officer was making bonafide efforts to complete the probe and sought one month to conclude the investigation.

Opposing the request, the petitioners' counsel, Advocate D Anil Kumar, submitted that the crime was registered in 2016 and that the present investigating officer, S Sasidharan IPS, was appointed only in 2024. He pointed out that the officer had sought multiple extensions after being entrusted with the investigation.

The petitioners also filed an interim application seeking the replacement of the investigating officer. The application referred to an earlier High Court order directing that the investigation be completed within three weeks, failing which the Court would consider entrusting the probe to another officer.

The petitioners suggested the name of DIG Jayanth Jaganathan to take over the investigation. They also requested the Court to direct the investigating officer to file an affidavit detailing the progress of the probe, pointing out that a final report had been filed in only one of nearly 124 related cases.

The public prosecutor sought time to file a counter affidavit on the interim application.

During the hearing, Justice Badharudeen orally observed that the requirement of prior sanction was impeding the prosecution of genuine vigilance cases. He further remarked that officials responsible for granting sanction were themselves accused in other vigilance cases, giving the impression of a reciprocal arrangement to deny sanction.

The judge observed that sanction should be granted where sufficient materials exist for prosecution and that sanctioning authorities should not adopt an adamant stand but instead pass reasoned orders.