POINTING OUT that the UT Police “has not done a fair investigation and was only puppets on the string held by the main accused Mukesh Mittal”, the inquiry report submitted by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in the multi-crore money laundering case has sought prosecution of accused Mukesh Mittal and Jatinder Mittal. ED’s probe has found that other accused are mere pawns or puppets in their hands.
The inquiry report, submitted in the Chandigarh District Court on Tuesday, mentions, “The actual accused and culprits in the case have gone scot-free namely, Mukesh Mittal, Jatinder Mittal and Surinder Mittal… Mukesh Mittal was mastermind behind the whole criminal conspiracy.” The report was submitted in connection with the complaint filed by UK-based NRI Tara Singh. Owner of the shop-cum-flat (SCF) number 8, Sector 20, Tara Singh had filed an eviction petition in the district courts, Chandigarh, through Jaswant Singh, his brother, against tenant O P Mittal.
The report says that Mukesh Mittal “was not behaving like a professional representing the case of his client in the courtroom but seems to be more active outside the court like a middleman or land mafia”.
ED Assistant Director Gopesh Byadwal was on Tuesday examined in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Atul Kasana, wherein he submitted his report. The matter was adjourned for next hearing to May 21.
Mukesh Mittal’s Fictitious Stories & Non-Cooperation
IT has been stated in the inquiry report that Mukesh Mittal received an amount of Rs 17.51 lakh and Rs 11.01 lakh from Jatinder Mittal and Meenakshi Mittal, son and daughter-in-law of O P Mittal. During the examination of Mukesh Mittal regarding bank statements and financial transactions, he stated that he had purchased a property in Sector 21 and due to shortage of money, he took a friendly loan from Jatinder Mittal and his wife. However, the ED report mentions that the story of any friendly loan is “fake and fictitious”. It was submitted that since Mukesh Mittal did not cooperate with the investigation and could not submit documents pertaining to loan and property, the investigation agency had to obtain the details from HDFC Bank.
The report clearly mentions that Jatinder Mittal is in conspiracy with Mukesh Mittal to usurp the property worth more than Rs 5 crore for a sum of Rs 35 lakh. The report states that even the telephone conversation between advocate G S Sawhney and Mukesh Mittal was doctored and “very cleverly and cunningly produced by Mukesh Mittal, after fully editing it”.
ED has given a clean chit to one of the accused, Harnek Singh, who was working under G S Sawhney as a clerk. “Harnek was ignorant and hardly conversant in English and his innocence and ignorance has been used to his disadvantage by those persons who were to benefit from the transaction…,” says the report.
Mukesh Mittal could not be contacted for his comment despite several attempts and did not respond to SMS message.
THE UT Police had registered a case on July 22, 2009, against G S Sawhney, his munshi Harnek Singh, advocate J B Singh and Tara Singh’s brother Jaswant Singh. All these persons were believed to have forged the power of attorney of NRI Tara Singh and selling of a Sector 20 shop to O P Mittal, who was a tenant there. They were booked under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC at the vigilance police station, Chandigarh, on a complaint of the owner of the shop Tara Singh. The case later went to ED in 2013.