Paridhi Arya
Published on July 3, 2022 at 15: 58 IST
The Mumbai Court’s Judge Sayyed allowed the CBI’s second closure report though Enforcement Directorate had objected it. The case was of corruption against Shridhar Patankar who is brother in law of former Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackrey.
The Court observed that both agencies should not interfere in each other’s investigation or direct each other on how the investigation should be done.
The FIR was filed by Archana Salaye who is assistant director of ED. It alleged that during demonetization between November 15 and December 26, 2016, sum of Rs 47.75 crores and Rs 37.15 crore were transferred to the accounts of Pihu Gold and Satnam Jewels. These accounts were in Union Bank of India.
ED had probed the matter and attached the property of 6,5 crore rupees which belongs to Shridhar Patnaik.
In 2020, CBI concluded that there is no substantive evidence against any individual and so filed their first closure report.
Court rejected its closure report and asked to conduct the investigation impartially and in a fair manner but the second report also had a same conclusion.
On July 2, 2022, the Court granted relief to Union Bank of India and all the firms named in the case and their directors. The ED had filed protest petition against the second closure report of CBI stating the investigation is jeopardized by CBI.
The Court had scrutinized each and every aspect of the investigation conducted by CBI and found that in report CBI tried to explain all the possible situations and there is no deficiency in it.
The Court observed that order of further investigation will not solve the purpose as no evidence can be made out against anyone.
Judge Sayyad held, “The fact that mere one case is pending before PMLA Court and the said court taken cognizance of the said case, would not bind CBI to submit chargesheet in corruption or fraud cases like instant one, more particularly when there is no evidence reveals in investigation.”
“In view of discussion as above, this court is of the considered opinion that this time it would be proper to accept the present report in the light of detail investigation of CBI.”