Kerala HC raises questions over alleged failure of police in acting against Monson Mavunkal

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday raised a volley of questions related to self-styled antiques dealer Monson Mavunkal's alleged links with senior police officials in the state, taking a serious look at the affidavit filed by the state police chief justifying the former DGP's visit to his home in May 2019 as purely to look at items.

Considering the affidavit filed on Thursday which claimed that there was no intelligence report available about the dubious nature of the articles in Mavunkal's house at the time of then state police chief Behera's visit there, Justice Devan Ramachandran asked whether the police was not aware of the law dealing with antiques.

Noting that there was a Central Act, called the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 and as per the provisions of the Act anything over 100 years is an antiquity, the court said such items have to be compulsorily registered with the competent authority.

Referring to unscheduled visit of Behera and then Additional Director General of Police (HQ) Manoj Abraham to the house of Mavunkal, the court sought to know who gave them information on the antiques dealer.

It asked whether these police officers were not aware of the Act and anybody with a cursory knowledge of law would have known that none of the items in his possession were registered under the Act.

The court asked whether the police officers were not curious when they saw "Moses' staff or Tipu Sultan's throne".

Pulling up the police for failing to act against Mavunkal initially, the court pointed out that the man in question was now an accused in a rape and POCSO cases also.

"What is happening? Can the police really investigate this?" the court asked, observing that such a situation could have been avoided if the police had timely taken action when they had suspicion about him.

In the affidavit, state police chief Anil Kant has submitted that then state police chief Behera's visit to Mavunkal's residence in May 2019 was "unscheduled" and purely out of interest to look at the items of historical importance that the latter claimed to possess and not to give him any undue mileage in society.

At the time Behera visited Mavunkal's residence on May 11, 2019, the latter was known in social media and the public as a doctor and philanthropist and there was no intelligence report available about the dubious nature of the articles in his house, the State Police Chief (SPC) said in the affidavit.

The affidavit was filed in response to the high court's query to Kant on October 5 as to whether he trusts the police under his command to carry out a proper investigation into the complaints against Mavunkal when allegations are "flying thick and high" against police officers of various ranks in the state.

Justice Devan Ramachandran had directed that the SPC file a detailed counter affidavit touching all the points raised by it and the investigation carried out so far on the complaints against Mavunkal.

The order had come on a plea by the antiques dealer's former driver-cum-mechanic alleging harassment by his former employer and some police officers close to him after he made certain disclosures to police in connection with a cheating case against Mavunkal.