A Mumbai court on Saturday accepted the CBI’s closure report in a case involving Shiv Sena’s brother-in-law, Uddhav Thackeray. This is the second closure report submitted by the CBI and the Executive Director (ED) has vehemently opposed the defense.
The CBI case is based on a complaint filed by Arcahana Salaye, assistant director of ED. FIR stated that between November 15 and December 26, 2016, after canceling the advertisement, huge cash amounts of Rs 47.75 crores and Rs 37.15 crores were expressed. fraudulently deposited into a company account called Pihu Gold and Satnam Jewels, maintained with Union Bank of India.
ED recently attached real estate worth Rs 6.5 crore owned by a company of Shridhar Madhav Patankar, brother-in-law of former Maharashtra Minister Uddhav Thackeray, in connection with this bankruptcy case .
According to the complaint, the records were fabricated and transferred to an NPA (Non-Active Asset) account, in the name of Pushpak Bullion Pvt Ltd maintained with a branch of Union Bank of India.
Two bank officials and others facilitated the concealment of the depositor’s identity and fraud in the exchange of currency that was paid out in the total amount of Rs 84.60 by disguise. like buying bullion from the alleged bank.
During the investigation, the CBI came to the conclusion that no corroborating evidence could be brought against the public servants and individuals. As a result, CBI filed its first closure report before the court and the same was denied in 2020. The Court directed the CBI to conduct an even more fair and objective investigation. However, despite doing so, the CBI came to the conclusion that there was no substantive evidence against the defendant.
On Saturday, a Mumbai court accepted the report and granted relief to the officials, jewelers and directors of a gold trading company, Pushpak Bullion Pvt Ltd.
However, the ED filed an objection for several reasons with a request to deny the closure report. ED, blaming the CBI, alleges that the investigation was not done appropriately.
“A clash like this between the two agencies reflects that both disagree and are not satisfied with the way each other works. Both parties equally acknowledge the statutory position that CBI and ED are two different entities. The CBI will not participate in the ED investigation, nor will the ED participate in the CBI investigation,” said judge AA Sayed of the special CBI.
The court then scrutinized the investigation conducted by the CBI and the explanation it gave for each issue. With this, the court said, “Neither investigative authorities can ask each other to investigate in any particular direction.”
The court found that the CBI had twice conducted an investigation of all aspects, not only of the facts, “but the CBI appears to have conducted an investigation of the views expressed by this court.”
“Considering carefully the further investigation conducted by the coroner into these court objections, the investigator according to this report appears to have been answered and attempted to explain all the questions asked by the investigator. questions brought by the court with adequate and reasonable explanations”. the court said.
The court noted that “further investigation revealed no oral circumstantial evidence nor any documents produced to substantiate the allegations against individuals or against banking officials. In the above situation and factual situation, this court considers that there would be no purpose by directing the investigator to carry out the investigation over and over again with the same circumstances and allegations.
The ED also conducted the case under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the special court under this act became aware of the case.
“By law, PMLA proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the PMLA Act. Meanwhile, CBI is working under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act (PC), Criminal Procedure Code along with the DSPE Act. CBI, ACB mostly investigate crimes of corruption and fraud in accordance with the PC Law. According to the investigation of CBI, ACB; There have not been any incriminating circumstances disclosed against those involved in fraud and criminal misconduct against banking officials,” the court said.
Judge Sayyad added, “The fact that there is only one case pending before the PMLA Court and that the said court was aware of said case, will not bind the CBI to file charges in the cases. corruption or fraud case immediately, especially when there is no evidence disclosed in the investigation.In view of the above discussion, it is believed that this time it would be correct to accept the current report in light of CBI’s detailed investigation.”