Solar scam: Former Kerala CM Chandy cross-examined in court

9 Jan 2017
Former Kerala chief minister Oommen Chandy was today cross-examined in a city civil court in connection with the solar project cheating case during which he replied to about 30-odd questions. dditional City Civil and Sessions Court Judge N R Channakeshava had directed the Congress leader to be present in the court for cross-examination by the prosecution. Bengaluru-based businessman M K Kuruvilla had filed a petition in 2015 seeking return of Rs 1,60,85,700 deposited with SCOSSA Educational Consultants Private Limited, the first defendant, for setting up a solar power project in Kerala. Chandy was earlier directed by the court to appear before it on December 13, but he failed to do so. The prosecution posed 30-odd questions to Chandy during the hearing, which lasted an hour. Many questions pertained to whether Chandy was aware of the various stages of the case and personally knew his counsels, who are waging a legal battle in the court for him. The questions also related to whether one of his counsels Santosh Kumar knew Chandy personally. In reply, the former chief minister said he had met Santosh Kumar on quite a few occasions but did not know the location of his office at Thiruvanantapuram. Chandy also replied he did not personally know the other two counsels, living in Bengaluru. Later, the judge adjourned the hearing for tomorrow, directing Chandy to appear before him for resumption of cross-examination. Channakeshava also directed the prosecution to wind up the cross-examination tomorrow. On January 2, the prosecution had sought time to study the affidavit, as he alleged that it was different from the copy of the affidavit he received. Sustaining the plea, the judge had adjourned the matter for hearing today. On October 24, the court had directed six persons, including Chandy, and a firm to together pay an amount of Rs 1,60,85,700 to Kuruvilla, with 12 per cent interest, for a solar project that did not materialise.
Chandy had filed two applications appealing against the earlier verdict. The first plea challenged court's ex-parte order and the second sought that his arguments be heard.(PTI)