Spl CBI court orders theme park re-probe

Dismissing the closure report filed by the CBI,the Court today allowed two applications moved by the complainant. In one application,the complainant had demanded that the case be re-investigated as the CBI had not looked into certain vital angles related to the case. The second application pertained to including Unitech Amusement Ltd in the case and also levying the charge of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds against the accused,mentioned in the FIR.

In April this year the CBI had filed a closure report in the FIR it had lodged against former UT Advisor Lalit Sharma,former UT Home Secretary Krishna Mohan,former UT Director (Tourism) Vivek Atray and Unitech Amusement Ltd,accusing them of involvement in corruption.

The CBI,in its closure report,had stated that during the course of its investigations,none of the allegations leveled in the complaint have been substantiated. The CBI also claimed to have not found any corroborative and substantial evidence of Unitech having “dealt” with any of these officers with a view to getting the allotment done in its favour.

The CBI claimed to have also “questioned” former Chandigarh Administrator Gen (Retd) S F Rodrigues in connection with the case and recorded his statement. However,Rodrigues’ statement was not included in the final closure report submitted in court by the CBI.

The complainant in the case,rights activist Vivek Aditya,had alleged that the CBI had not conducted a thorough investigation in the case and had ignored various crucial aspects related to the case. In his first application,dated May 25,2012,the applicant alleged,“The CBI has mysteriously overlooked the main points pertaining to corruption and avoided including Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) in the FIR to dilute the case. The CBI has covered only the minor or secondary points and ignored the major points of corruption.”

Points ignored by CBI to be probed

The points ignored by the CBI probe,which will now be looked into during re-investigation (as alleged by the complainant in his two applications,allowed by the CBI court today are:-

Discerning the pattern of crime,as is clear if the complete picture is seen in the context of the same modus operandi getting repeated in the Prideasia and Filmcity cases,has not been done.

The astounding properties worth Rs 200 crore amassed during the same period of these projects by Nirvikar Singh,then ADC to the then Punjab Governor-cum-UT Administrator,were being looked separately via CBI Delhi’s FIR (dated 16-06-2010). These should have been looked into by the CBI’s UT office as the scene of possible crime and ongoing cases are in Chandigarh. Emerald Estates,the main company holding these huge properties,has just Rs 1 lakh as paid up capital. The other companies registered at the same address at Bhishm Pitamah Marg,New Delhi (ie Jagrut consultant & K N L Packaging) are being allowed to be struck off the RoC register. The possible money trail to these projects and the benami components were deliberately not being followed.

There seems to be a particular attempt to shield the private party (ie M/s Unitech) in the FIR and that is why IPC Sections 107-109 were not levied in the FIR.

It was odd that the CBI had not attached the CVC inquiry report with this closure report. The CVC had not just sent a reference to the CBI on the applicant’s complaint but had conducted an in-depth inquiry on the matter. It is also most out of place that the CVC was not taken into loop before filing this closure.

It is essential that IPC Sections 409 read with 511 (attempt of embezzlement) be included in the FIR for the officers and Sections 107-109 for M/s Unitech. The directions of law and General Financial Rules (GFR) have been broken with malicious intent.

CBI kept away from the Court that the land valuation done by the Income Tax department of Chandigarh was at Rs 1,400 crore whereas the UT Administration and CBI were talking about the License fee fixed for only Rs 250 crore approximately.

Keeping secret or not even referring,let alone explaining the action taken,to the fact that the CVC had determined that “even the role of UT Administrator was not above suspicion”.