Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav (left) and Mulayam Singh Yadav (right) (File photo)
Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav (left) and Mulayam Singh Yadav (right) (File photo)

CBI didn't conduct fair probe against Mulayam, Akhilesh in DA case: Petitioner tells SC

ANI | Updated: Aug 12, 2019 14:33 IST

New Delhi, August 12 (ANI): The Supreme Court">Supreme Court was told that the CBI did not conduct a fair and proper investigation into the alleged disproportionate assets case against Samajwadi Party (SP) leaders Mulayam Singh Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav.
The petitioner, advocate Vishwanath Chaturvedi, who had sought a CBI-led probe in the case apprised the top court that the central probe agency "suppressed martial facts" to save criminal prosecution against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his sons Akhilesh and Prateek Yadav.
Advocate Chaturvedi said that the CBI in its affidavit filed in May this year before the Supreme Court">Supreme Court had claimed that the investigative agency has not found any proof to substantiate the allegations of disproportionate assets case against the Yadavs, hence, it had closed the preliminary enquiry on August 7, 2013.
He said CBI in its affidavit had also stated that it had submitted a report to the CVC in October 2013.
Chaturvedi citing response to a RTI filed by him, in his affidavit countering to CBI's claims, said that no such report filed by the CBI is available with Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
The lawyer underlined that CVC on July 5 in a reply to a RTI filed by him, disclosed that "no such report was found in their possession."
Claiming that, statement made by the CBI in the counter affidavit is contradictory, he added that the investigative agency made incorrect statement before the Court.
He further contended that "the action of the CBI is legally not sustainable."
Chaturvedi claimed that the CBI is protecting Yadavs "intentionally and not investigated the matter in fair and proper manner but also misled the court", hence, the court may pass appropriate orders against the responsible officers of the CBI found guilty for misleading the Supreme Court">Supreme Court.
He said that the CBI should be directed by the apex court to produce the correct status of the case and action taken by them as per the direction of the court in 2007 and 2013.
His petition had said that the CBI has "utterly failed" to intimate either to the apex court or report to the jurisdictional Magistrate in respect of investigation done and status of the case as directed by the top court in two judgements.
The advocate also claimed that Mulayam Singh Yadav had allegedly amassed disproportionate assets worth over Rs 100 crore during his tenure as Uttar Pradesh chief minister between 1999 and 2005.
The CBI has taken an unusually long time to complete the preliminary inquiry in this highly sensitive and important matter of a long-pending investigation since 2007, said the plea, adding that even after the loss of 11 years when the verdict had come and six years after the order on review petition, CBI has not acted in the case.
In 2005, Chaturvedi had filed a plea in the apex court seeking the CBI inquiry against Mulayam, his sons Akhilesh and Prateek Yadav and daughter-in-law Dimple Yadav, under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly acquiring amassed assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power of authority.
In a March 2007 judgement, the Supreme Court">Supreme Court had ordered the CBI to inquire into allegations against Yadav family submit a report of its preliminary inquiry to the Centre.
The Yadav family later filed a review petition against 2007 verdict and in its December 2012 judgement, the top court gave the CBI complete freedom to go about the inquiry into allegations of disproportionate wealth.
However, the court had modified its 2007 order to exempt Dimple Yadav from the inquiry as she had not held any public posts during the period under the scanner.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was hearing the case filed by Chaturvedi. (ANI)

iocl