Court orders detailed investigation of Powai housing scam case; jolt for Hiranandani
Based on activist Santosh Daundkar’s plea alleging that Hiranandani and others were involved in irregularities in the Powai housing project, the court in 2012 ordered a probe.
A special court has slammed the Anti-Corruption Bureau for seeking to close the probe in the Powai housing scam case in which developer Niranjan Hiranandani and public servants are named without completing the probe. It directed a detailed investigation and said a final report could be filed only thereafter.
“I feel that unless the investigating officer comes with the final opinion that the entire investigation has been carried out, no final report can be accepted. Hence, final report is rejected,” special judge Dilip K Gudadhe said.
Based on activist Santosh Daundkar’s plea alleging that Hiranandani and others were involved in irregularities in the Powai housing project, the court in 2012 ordered a probe. The ACB filed an FIR against Hiranandani and senior IAS officer in the urban development department Thomas Benjamin under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
In 2013, the ACB sought to close the case on the grounds that there isn’t sufficient evidence against the accused. Daundakar opposed the move. His lawyer Aditya Pratap contended that the probe was not carried out fully and, hence, the final report cannot be accepted.
The investigating officer had told the court that Daundkar had not visited the bureau office and evidence could not be collected from him. He added that some files and documents were not yet received from MMRDA (Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority).
The officer had further contended that he be permitted to file a further report under provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code when he receives such evidence. Referring to this, the court said, “It is clearly seen that the investigation is not fully completed. If this is the position, the investigating officer cannot come to the conclusion that the evidence is deficient to file the chargesheet. Hence, I find less substance in the contention of the investigating officer to accept the final report as he filed.”
The court also pointed out that in the record summary filed with the report, it is mentioned that the investigation is not complete. The report was filed in view of the direction given by Bombay high court to file the final report within the prescribed time. “This does not mean that the investigating officer should file a report without making a complete investigation and that too (to) his own satisfaction. The investigating agency could have very well prayed for extension of time if he was of the opinion that the investigation is not yet completed,” said the court.
It added that the earlier investigating officer had completed the investigation and prayed to his senior officer to permit him to file the chargesheet. “But before such permission was granted, the investigation appears to have been handed over to the present investigating officer, who hurriedly filed the final report, and the same is apparently contradictory to the findings of the earlier investigating officer,” the court said. It observed that there was no explanation from the current investigating officer as to how the probe by the earlier officer was incorrect.
[TNN]
A special court has slammed the Anti-Corruption Bureau for seeking to close the probe in the Powai housing scam case in which developer Niranjan Hiranandani and public servants are named without completing the probe. It directed a detailed investigation and said a final report could be filed only thereafter.
“I feel that unless the investigating officer comes with the final opinion that the entire investigation has been carried out, no final report can be accepted. Hence, final report is rejected,” special judge Dilip K Gudadhe said.
In 2013, the ACB sought to close the case on the grounds that there isn’t sufficient evidence against the accused. Daundakar opposed the move. His lawyer Aditya Pratap contended that the probe was not carried out fully and, hence, the final report cannot be accepted.
The investigating officer had told the court that Daundkar had not visited the bureau office and evidence could not be collected from him. He added that some files and documents were not yet received from MMRDA (Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority).
The officer had further contended that he be permitted to file a further report under provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code when he receives such evidence. Referring to this, the court said, “It is clearly seen that the investigation is not fully completed. If this is the position, the investigating officer cannot come to the conclusion that the evidence is deficient to file the chargesheet. Hence, I find less substance in the contention of the investigating officer to accept the final report as he filed.”
The court also pointed out that in the record summary filed with the report, it is mentioned that the investigation is not complete. The report was filed in view of the direction given by Bombay high court to file the final report within the prescribed time. “This does not mean that the investigating officer should file a report without making a complete investigation and that too (to) his own satisfaction. The investigating agency could have very well prayed for extension of time if he was of the opinion that the investigation is not yet completed,” said the court.
It added that the earlier investigating officer had completed the investigation and prayed to his senior officer to permit him to file the chargesheet. “But before such permission was granted, the investigation appears to have been handed over to the present investigating officer, who hurriedly filed the final report, and the same is apparently contradictory to the findings of the earlier investigating officer,” the court said. It observed that there was no explanation from the current investigating officer as to how the probe by the earlier officer was incorrect.
[TNN]
Comments
Post a Comment