Observing that the entire system had allowed Monson Mavunkal, a fake antiquities dealer, to take everyone for a ride, the Kerala High Court on Friday directed the State Government to inform the court whether entities having links beyond the borders or persons of non-residents are involved in the cases registered against him.
Justice Devan Ramachandran passed the order when a petition filed by Ajith E.V., a former driver of Monson, complaining about the police harassment came up for hearing.
The court said there was a breakdown of the system and Monson had pulled a fast one on everybody. Had the police acted when one of the police officers suspected the activities of the antiquities dealer, his acts could have been stopped. Now rape cases and POCSO cases had been registered against him. All of this happened when the highest authorities were visiting his residence.
The court orally noted that the police had given protection to his house on the ground that antiquities were kept there. This was despite the fact that the Additional Director General Manoj Abraham had raised doubts about his activities and the State Police Chief had ordered the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) to conduct a discreet inquiry into the possession of various artefacts by Monson. In fact, it took seven months for the ADGP(Intelligence) to come out with a report.
“A stitch in time saves nine... The first time you had a hunch about him, you let the man continue for three years,” the court said.
The court also pointed out that those who kept antiquities should have compulsorily obtained a registration from the Archaeological Survey of India under the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act and Rules. When the two police officers who made an unscheduled visit to the house of Monson and saw the articles, and one of the officers raised doubts about the artefacts, the first thing that should have come to the mind of the police officers was whether they were registered. Were these officers not aware of the Act and Rules, the court asked
The court said the allegations of involvement of an association of expatriates were in the public domain. However, the affidavit filed by the Government did not make any mention of the involvement of persons outside the State borders or persons of non-residents. The court also asked whether the special investigation team had information about something “bigger than an ordinary con job or theft or it had something to do with the international borders.”
The court posted the case on November 11.
