The Congress leader in 2005 had filed the PIL in the top court seeking a direction to the CBI to take appropriate action to prosecute Yadavs for allegedly acquiring assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power of authority. T
There is a “larger conspiracy” to give the clean chit to former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, his son Akhilesh and others in the disproportionate assets (DA) case, Congress activist Vishwanath Chaturvedi has told the Supreme Court. A larger conspiracy to cover up the criminal case and to give clean chit to them took place from 2009 to 2013, Chaturvedi has said in his counter reply “Therefore this court has to examine the larger conspiracy entered into by the Respondents to close the matter…”, he said.
He has filed a fresh application in the apex court seeking a direction to the CBI to place the status report on probe either before it or a magisterial court in the disproportionate assets case against the three SP leaders — Mulayam and his two sons, Akhilesh, also a former Chief Minister, and Prateek. Chaturvedi, who had initially filed the petition in 2005 against them, has now alleged that CBI not only misleads the court but also suppressed the material facts to cover up the serious lapses by it in the case.
- Supreme Court asks HCs to make e-filing of cases mandatory in certain types of cases from Jan 1
- Lakhimpur Kheri Violence: Six arrested but key accused still missing, BJP demands action in killing of three partymen
- Singhu border killing: NCSC chief speaks to Punjab DGP, seeks action against villagers for 'not allowing' cremation of Dalit labourer
Citing a RTI reply of July 5, Chaturvedi said that Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has informed him that no report was placed by CBI before it. He said CVC’s reply was contradictory to the CBI’s statement that Preliminary Enquiry against Mulayam, Akhilesh and Prateek was closed after filing a report with the CVC on October 8, 2013. “On the one hand, CBI stated that preliminary enquiry was closed by submitting report to the CVC on October 8, 2013, but on the other hand the preliminary enquiry in the present case was not converted into a criminal case/FIR under the provisions of CrPC, the fact remains that the CBI ought to have registered FIR in order to conduct further enquiry but they did not do so”, said Chaturvedi’s affidavit filed recently. He also contradicted the statements of CBI that it had at no stage placed the enquiry report either before the top court or before the magistrate or gave the same to the petitioner and said that three reports were filed in 2007.
“Therefore, either the CBI or other Respondents have not come to the court with clean hands, they have suppressed the material facts and also they have taken contrary stands against each other in respect of the said reports,” the affidavit of Chaturvedi said. On May 21, the CBI had told the apex court that allegations of disproportionate assets against the Samajwadi party leaders could not be substantiated and it had closed the preliminary enquiry on August 7, 2013. In an affidavit filed in the top court, CBI had said that since “no prima facie evidence” of commission of cognisable offence against Mulayam and his two sons, Akhilesh and Prateek, was found, the PE was not converted into a criminal case/FIR and as such, no enquiry was conducted in the matter after August 7, 2013.
The CBI had said that after conducting further enquiry in a “fair, impartial and professional manner” in the matter, it had independently taken a decision to close the probe against them as per court’s directions in the 2012 verdict. It said that CVC was communicated about the decision taken in the PE on October 8, 2013, along with reasons for difference in computation of disproportionate assets in the early findings of 2007.
The agency said that PE is not a criminal investigation as envisaged under the CrPC and hence there was requirement for it to place the report before the jurisdictional court and even the apex court had not directed the agency to place before it or any other authority. Yadav, who contested Lok Sabha polls from Mainpuri seat in Uttar Pradesh, alleged that the petition, filed on the poll eve, was politically motivated. He had alleged that Chaturvedi was trying to rake up an old disproportionate assets case against him and his family to malign their image during the current general elections.
The Congress leader in 2005 had filed the PIL in the top court seeking a direction to the CBI to take appropriate action to prosecute Yadavs for allegedly acquiring assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power of authority. The apex court in its verdict of March 1, 2007 had directed the CBI “to enquire into allegations” and find out as to as to whether the plea with regard to disproportionate assets of SP leaders was “correct or not”.
In 2012, the court had dismissed the review petitions of Yadav and his sons against its verdict and directed the CBI to go ahead with the probe against them in the disproportionate assets case. It had allowed the review plea of Dimple Yadav, wife of Akhilesh and directed the CBI to drop the inquiry against her saying that she was not holding any public office.