In an affidavit filed in the top court, CBI said that since "no prima facie evidence" of commission of cognisable offence against Mulayam and his two sons, Akhilesh and Prateek, was found, the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) was not converted into a criminal case/FIR and as such, no enquiry was conducted in the matter after August 7, 2013.
In a relief to former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh, the CBI has told the Supreme Court that the allegations of disproportionate assets against them could not be substantiated and it had closed the preliminary enquiry on August 7, 2013. In an affidavit filed in the top court, CBI said that since “no prima facie evidence” of commission of cognisable offence against Mulayam and his two sons, Akhilesh and Prateek, was found, the Preliminary Enquiry (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 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. In its 21-page affidavit, the CBI said, “Thereafter in compliance of the directions of the court in the judgement dated December 13, 2012, further enquiry was conducted in the said PE and it was found that the allegations against Respondent(s)…, for allegedly having acquired disproportionate assets to their known source of income could not be substantiated”.
“The further enquiry under the registered PE in the present case commenced after the judgement dated December 13, 2012, of the court and was concluded on August 7, 2013. I further respectfully state and submit that since, no prima facie evidence of commission of cognizable offence against the suspects was found during enquiry, hence, the PE in the present case was not converted into a criminal case/FIR…and as such, no enquiry was conducted in the matter after August 7, 2013,” a CBI SP said in the affidavit. He said that the apex court in its 2012 verdict had passed various directions in the matter and allowed the CBI to take such independent action, as it considers fit, on the basis of the enquiry conducted by it, without seeking any direction from any corner.
“Accordingly, the CBI after conducting further enquiry in a fair, impartial and professional manner in the matter, had independently taken a decision to close the enquiry against Respondent number 2, 3 and 5 (Mulayam, Akhilesh and Prateek) on August 7, 2013, in view of the directions of the court in the said judgement,” the affidavit said.
CBI said that pursuant to the apex court verdict in 2007 on a plea by petitioner Vishwanath Chaturvedi, it had registered the PE on March 5, 2007, to look into the allegations of acquiring of disproportionate assets to the known source of income against the trio, Dimple Yadav (Akhilesh’s wife), and other unknown persons.
“On careful examination of documents, statements of witnesses and the versions of the suspects during the course of further enquiry, sufficient evidence to support the allegations of possessions of disproportionate assets, jointly or individually, against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members could not be brought out. Therefore, in view of direction passed by court…in its judgement dated December 13, 2012, the competent authority in CBI took a considered decision on August 7, 2013, to close the PE against all the suspects”, the affidavit said. 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. On April 12, the CBI had told the apex court that it had closed in 2013 a PE against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh in the disproportionate assets case.
The top court had directed CBI to file its reply on a fresh plea by Chaturvedi seeking to know the status of probe in the assets case.
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 and directed the CBI to drop the inquiry against her saying that she was not holding any public office.