New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Supreme Court on Friday that it had closed in 2013 a preliminary inquiry against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh in a disproportionate assets case.
Taking note of the oral submission by the agency, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked the CBI to file its response within four weeks on a fresh plea filed by a Congress activist in the disproportionate assets case against Mulayam Singh Yadav.
Yadav had said the petition against him and his family was filed in 2005 and the CBI and the Income Tax Authorities did not find anything adverse.
The Samajwadi Party leader alleged in an affidavit that Congress activist Vishwanath 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.
Yadav, who had filed his affidavit in response to the notice issued to him on March 25, said Chaturvedi filed a fresh plea for extraneous reasons and with an objective to gain political mileage "just at the time and eve of the 2019 General Elections with mala fide reasons".
Chaturvedi has sought a direction to the CBI to place the status report on probe either before the apex court or before a magisterial court in the assets case against the three SP leaders -- Yadav and his two sons, Akhilesh, also a former Chief Minister, and Prateek.
"The petition is not bona fide and has been filed for extraneous reasons and considerations to malign the reputation of Yadav and his family particularly when the petitioner is aware that respondents would be contesting in the upcoming general elections," the affidavit claimed.
The petitioner is associated and affiliated to a political adversary and he himself contested assembly election in the past and lost, it had added.
He had said even after a detailed enquiry, spread over the period of about two years, no case was found by the CBI against him or his son Akhilesh and daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav.
He had further submitted that due to one petition filed, he has been subjected to a prolonged investigation by the CBI but nothing was unearthed.
"It is stated that on account of the said proceedings, Yadav has been suffering and facing completely uncalled for embarrassment in the public sphere. He has been subjected to the investigation only for the reason that he and his family members have been in public life and have held high offices both at the state and central level," the affidavit had said.
Yadav had submitted that in the absence of any direction of registration of FIR or regular case by the CBI no directions can be given by the top court for placing the report of the probe agency before the jurisdictional magistrate as sought by the petitioner.
Chaturvedi, in 2005, had filed the PIL in the top court seeking a direction to the CBI to take appropriate action to prosecute Yadav, Akhilesh and his wife Dimple, and Prateek under the Prevention of Corruption Act 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.
The court had also modified its March 1, 2007 order and asked the CBI to file the status report before the court, not the government.
The top court had on March 25, 2019, had also asked the probe agency to file a report within two weeks and said that "there was a status report (of 2007 by CBI) saying that prima facie case is made out. We are entitled to know as to what happened to the investigation".
Comments
0 comment