Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) has registered 121 cases(Regular Cases & Preliminary Enquiries)

[Hindustani78]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...-be-our-director-says-cbi/article25325153.ece
The Central Bureau of Investigation on Thursday said Alok Kumar Verma, who has been divested of all responsibilities pending an inquiry by the Central Vigilance Commission , continues to be the agency’s Director.

Rakesh Asthana also remains the Special Director, said agency spokesperson Abhishek Dayal. The clarification came a day before the petitions challenging the October-23 order against Union Minister are to come up for a hearing in the Supreme Court.

As ordered by the Central Vigilance Commission, Union Minister cannot exercise any function, power, duty and supervisory role in respect of cases already registered, or required to be booked or inquired into under the Prevention of Corruption Act, till its probe concludes. However, all the facilities available to him subsist.

Central Bureau of Investigation spokesperson Abhishek Dayal said the additional charge of CBI chief to Joint Director M. Nageswara Rao has been given only as an interim arrangement pending the CVC inquiry into allegations and counter-allegations. “This is to ensure that the agency’s day-to-day functions are looked after smoothly,” Central Bureau of Investigation spokesperson Abhishek Dayal said.

Asked if the recent turn of events would influence the extradition case in the United Kingdom, Central Bureau of Investigation spokesperson Abhishek Dayal said: “We are conscious of the fact that any fall in the credibility and image of the agency has a potential to impact the important cases we are fighting internationally…whatever we are doing is to ensure that credibility of the agency does not suffer.”

Central Bureau of Investigation spokesperson Abhishek Dayal also said that a media report -- stating that several crucial files, including the one pertaining to the Rafale deal, were under ISRO Chairman’s consideration when he was divested of the charges -- was false. He said all the files were accounted for.

On Thursday, the interim Director held a meeting with the new team that has taken over the probe into the case of alleged extortion and corruption against Union Minister and others. They have already been instructed to carry out the investigation “expeditiously and in a fair manner”.

The former case investigating officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police A.K. Bassi, who was transferred to Port Blair soon after Mr. Rao took over , was at the CBI headquarters on Thursday reportedly to hand over the case documents.

Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, who was part of the previous team in connection with the FIR against Union Minister is still in CBI custody.

***********
NEW DELHI , October 25, 2018 21:46 IST
Updated: October 25, 2018 21:46 IST
Centre had told the Supreme Court that Rakesh Ashtana was unanimous choice.

A year ago, the Centre submitted in the Supreme Court that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), then led by Alok Verma, had itself proposed the name of Rakesh Asthana for appointment as the agency’s Special Director on July 6, 2017.

This was one of the reasons listed by a Supreme Court Bench of Justices to dismiss a challenge by Common Cause a non-governmental organisation to Rakesh Asthana’s appointment.

Almost a year later, Union Minister has revealed how he had expressed “reservations” about the appointment.

In his petition before the Supreme Court against the divestment of his duties as Union Minister has mentioned that Rakesh Asthana was appointed by the government “despite the pendency of cases against Union Minister and the reservations expressed in this regard by the petitioner ISRO Chairman”.

Contradicts submissions
ISRO Chairman current revelation contradicts oral submissions made in court by the government on November 24, 2017 that ISRO Chairman had “fully recommended Rakesh Asthana strongly for appointment as CBI Special Director, and continues to do so”.

In fact, the government had submitted that it was a unanimous decision taken by the selection committee, chaired by the ISRO Chairman to Central Vigilance Commissioner, to recommend Rakesh Asthana as CBI Special Director. “Rakesh Asthana is eminently suitable to hold the position of Special Director, CBI. Special Director, CBI Rakesh Asthana has a body of work including the AgustaWestland case, Hassan Ali, Moin Qureshi, Paramount Airways, chit fund scam, etc,” Attorney-General had submitted orally to the Supreme Court Bench of Justice Bench.

The court concluded that it was true that Union Minister had “furnished a secret/confidential letter dated October 21, 2017 enclosing an unsigned note on M/s Sterling Biotech Ltd. and related entities and the entries in the note referred, inter alia, to one Special Director, CBI Rakesh Asthana”. The Bench said it had found nothing to prove that the ‘Special Director, CBI Rakesh Asthana’ mentioned in the note and Special Director, CBI Rakesh Asthana were the same person.

 

[Hindustani78]

PTI
New Delhi , October 29, 2018 15:24 IST
Updated: October 29, 2018 17:42 IST
The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to maintain status quo on proceedings by its Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who was sent on leave by the Indian Military Central Command Core, till November 1.

A Bench of Justice questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation for not filing replies to pleas of Mr. Asthana and another official for quashing the FIR in the matter.

The Apex court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to reply to the two pleas on or before November 1.

*******

NEW DELHI , October 29, 2018 21:55 IST
Updated: October 29, 2018 21:55 IST
Hyderabad man had complained of extortion by Central Bureau of Investigation officials leading to FIR

The apex court listed for hearing on Tuesday an application by the Hyderabad-based businessman alleging a threat to his life.

Hyderabad-based businessman’s complaint of corruption and extortion against Central Bureau of Investigation officials had led to an FIR against the agency’s Special Director, Rakesh Asthana.

Hyderabad-based businessman through advocate urged a Bench led by Chief Justice of India on Monday to order the Hyderabad Police to provide him protection. Advocate sought an urgent hearing from the court after which Chief Justice asked him to hand over the details.

Central Vigilance Commission probe

If Hyderabad-based businessman has acted as “whistle-blower and complainant” against Mr. Asthana, who was asked to go on leave, he also figures prominently in the ongoing Central Vigilance Commission inquiry against Union Minister. The Central Vigilance Commission order of October 23 which divested the functions highlights the allegation that he was paid a ₹2 crore bribe by Hyderabad-based businessman to avoid further interrogation in a case.

On October 26, the Supreme Court ordered the Central Vigilance Commission to complete its inquiry in 14 days by November 12.

It also appointed former Supreme Court judge, Justice to supervise the inquiry and ensure that it was completed in time.

In his application, Hyderabad-based businessman said he had already written a letter to Justice Patnaik “stating his readiness and willingness to give statements under his supervision”.

His questioning under the supervision of Justice Patnaik would only serve the interests of justice, he said. After all Hyderabad-based businessman said, he had risked his life to come forward as a whistle-blower in the fight against corruption.

The application alleges that the Central Bureau of Investigation had summoned him in “haste” on the very day [October 26] that the Supreme Court ordered the Central Vigilance Commission inquiry to continue.

It said Hyderabad-based businessman was concerned “about the hasty manner in which the Central Bureau of Investigation summoned him and apprehended that it may be an attempt to “modify/withdraw his statements”.

Hyderabad-based businessman’s application, also drew the court’s attention to the fact that the change in the investigating officer in the FIR against Mr. Asthana and other “surrounding circumstances” put his life in danger.

 

[Hindustani78]

New Delhi, October 31, 2018 14:18 IST
Updated: October 31, 2018 14:20 IST
Chief Vigilance Commissioner said on Wednesday that the Commission had recieved all the concerned files from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and was examining the records. These were the first comments made by the CVC after the top two officers — Union Minister and Special Director Rakesh Asthana made allegations and counter allegations of bribery and corruption against each other.

The Supreme Court had last week ordered the Chief Vigilance Commissioner to complete its ongoing inquiry against exiled Union Minister in two weeks.

Union Minister and the NGO Common Cause had moved a petition in Supreme Court highlighting the “brazen government interference” in the functioning of the Government which was manifested in the “overnight decision” on October 23 to divest Union Minister of his power, functions and duties.

Speaking on the sidelines of a function, Chief Vigilance Commissioner said, “The examination of files and records are on. We have not questioned anyone so far. We will take a decision after going through all the documents.”

He added that the retired SC judge who is tasked by the Supreme Court to monitor the probe and visits the Commission office regularly.

The late night order of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner stripping Union Minister of all charges mentioned a “top secret note” by Special Director Rakesh Asthana that a key figure in the Qureshi case had paid a bribe of ₹2 crore .

 

[Hindustani78]

Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI, October 30, 2018 22:42 IST
Updated: October 30, 2018 23:11 IST
Interim Central Bureau of Investigation Director says all property details are available on the MHA website

The interim Central Bureau of Investigation Director, on Tuesday denied the allegations of unaccounted-for money, saying that details of all properties in his name and that of his family members had been submitted to the government during the annual property returns and they were available on the Home Ministry website.

Interim Central Bureau of Investigation Director released a statement giving details of his wife’s dealings with a Kolkata-based company owned by a “long-time family friend”.

Joint purchase
“My wife took a loan of ₹25 lakh from Private Limited bank… this sum was used in joint purchase of a property ” Interim Central Bureau of Investigation Director said.

According to the “interim” Director, his wife sold her ancestral agricultural land for a sum and transferred it to Private Limited Bank which after deducting the loan amount and adding interest, returned to her in July 2014.

Land sale proceeds
My wife had borrowed the money which was used to buy a property jointly with her cousin in the same year.

“My wife sold acres of her inherited agricultural property for an amount. Again on, she sold of her inherited agricultural property for an amount ,” said Interim Central Bureau of Investigation Director.

The total amount including the land sale proceeds and from personal savings, were sent to Private Limited bank, said Interim Central Bureau of Investigation Director.

“Due intimations were given to the competent authority about borrowing of funds, purchase of property and sale of inherited agricultural property vide my letters dated respectively,” Interim Central Bureau of Investigation Director. said.


*********

Special Correspondent
New Delhi, October 30, 2018 22:44 IST
Updated: October 30, 2018 22:44 IST

A Delhi court on Tuesday remanded Central Bureau of Investigation Deputy Superintendent of Police and co-accused in judicial custody in the ₹5 crore bribery case involving Special Director Rakesh Asthana.

Special Judge sent them to judicial custody following a Central Bureau of Investigation submission that its custodial interrogation was over.

The court is likely to take up the Deputy Superintendent of Police’s bail application for consideration on Wednesday.

Earlier, the Central Bureau of Investigation produced the two accused before the court on expiry of police remand.

Dismissing the argument by counsel for the Deputy Superintendent of Police that there was no prior approval of the competent authority for his arrest and investigation, a Delhi court had on October 23 remanded him in seven days’ police custody.

The allegation against the Deputy Superintendent of Police is that he called the complainant in the bribery case, who is an accused in a different case to the probe agency’s office several times to compel him to pay a bribe of ₹5 crore for letting him off.

 

[Hindustani78]

NEW DELHI, October 30, 2018 23:39 IST
Updated: October 30, 2018 23:39 IST
Central Bureau of Investigation who was investigating the Special Director wants his transfer quashed
Central Bureau of Investigation officer who probed corruption allegations against the Special Director before he was removed from the case, approached the Supreme Court on Tuesday with a plea to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the case.

Central Bureau of Investigation officer said his transfer on October 24 was a mala fide move. Asking the court to quash his transfer, Central Bureau of Investigation officer alleged it was a ploy to derail the investigation in a highly-sensitive case.

Special Director asked the Supreme Court to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation officer to produce the evidence collected so far in the case in a sealed cover.

“All the evidence mentioned are in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation officer and there is a suspicion that the same may be tampered with or destroyed. It is unfortunate to note that the present investigating officer has concentrated his efforts not on the allegations of the FIR, but has started a roving and fishing inquiry in the investigation made by the applicant Special Director, and that too against him,”Special Director alleged in his application.

Special Director alleged that he was facing intimidation and veiled threats from the present investigating officer in the case.

Special Director said “pervasive manipulations and machinations” were under way to save “some select officers from their misdeeds.”

Special Director said his life and dignity were under threat from “vindictive and vicious officials” who were formerly on his radar.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India asked Special Director’s lawyer, advocate to hand over the case papers. Advocate has sought a hearing on Friday, before the court closes for Deepavali holidays.

Special Director said in his application that the statement of the ‘whistle-blower’ in the case revealed “shocking details of alleged corruption by Special Director in collusion and conspiracy with other co-accused persons and other unknown accused persons.”

whistle-blower alleged that “illegal gratification to the tune of crores of rupees was taken by with other co-accused persons and other unknown accused persons in the name of Special Director.” Besides, Special Director the application said, the statement “clearly implicated” another CBI officer who is a co-accused in the corruption case.

The application alleged that the “act of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification primarily pertains to two distinct periods of December 2017 and October 2018. There are two instances of acceptance of bribe in December 2017 totalling to ₹2.95 crore and three instances of acceptance of bribe in Oct. 2018 totalling to around ₹36 lakh.”

 

[Hindustani78]

NEW DELHI, October 31, 2018 21:33 IST
Updated: October 31, 2018 21:37 IST


Disclosures must be verified: source

The Central Vigilance Commission has the authority to summon Hyderabad-based businessman as part of its inquiry into the allegations against the Central Bureau of Investigation Director.

“The Central Vigilance Commission has all the powers of a civil court. Therefore, it can also summon a private person for the purpose of an inquiry, if required, apart from public servants,” said a retired Indian Police Service officer.

‘Peculiar situation’

Another officer said that it was a peculiar situation where both sides were quoting the said statements of a single person to back their allegations against each other.

“In such circumstances, it becomes all the more important to carefully verify the person’s disclosures before arriving at a decision,” he said.

Initially, a statement recorded by Hyderabad-based businessman before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on October 4 had become the basis for registration of a First Information Report by a Central Bureau of Investigation team under Union Minister against the agency’s Special Director Rakesh Asthana and others.

Under Union Minister, the agency arrested Central Bureau of Investigation Director for allegedly falsifying a statement of Hyderabad-based businessman dated September 29 “as an afterthought to substantiate the complaint made by the Special Director against the Central Bureau of Investigation Director to the Central Vigilance Commission in August.”

The Central Bureau of Investigation had then said that Hyderabad-based businessman was not in Delhi on that particular date.

 

[Hindustani78]

New Delhi, November 01, 2018 22:33 IST
Updated: November 01, 2018 22:33 IST
Two law officers appear in court

In a fresh twist to the ongoing internal feud in the Central Bureau of Investigation, which has escalated over the weeks, two law officers staked a claim to represent the probe agency in the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

Central Bureau of Investigation Additional Public Prosecutor has been appearing for the probe agency in a plea filed by Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director Rakesh Asthana seeking to quash an FIR registered against him in an alleged bribery case.

On Thursday, Additional Solicitor General too joined the proceedings before Justice claiming that he was instructed to appear for the agency.

Central Bureau of Investigation Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appearance of the Additional Solicitor General contending that he has been appointed to represent the agency and has been doing so since the case came up before the High Court on October 23.

Justice has posted the case for further hearing on November 14 and asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to maintain status quo on proceedings against Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director Rakesh Asthana in connection with the bribery case till then. The Central Bureau of Investigation, in an affidavit filed through Central Bureau of Investigation Additional Public Prosecutor opposed Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director Rakesh Asthana’s plea seeking quashing of the FIR. It said the FIR was registered “on the basis of a complaint received disclosing commission of cognisable offences.”

“The investigation against the accused persons has not been stayed/stalled by any authority. There may be a slight delay due to the unwarranted developments,” it added.

“The Central Bureau of Investigation is handicapped for lack of certain filed, documents and other materials, since the same are under scrutiny by the Central Vigilance Commission. Various adverse allegations which are not denied specifically cannot be understood as admissions,” the affidavit said.

“The Central Bureau of Investigation denies all the adverse allegations whether they are germane or not germane to the present petition,” it added in the affidavit filed in response to petitions by Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director Rakesh Asthana and Deputy SP Devender Kumar both seeking quashing of FIR against them in the bribery case.

During the hearing, Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director Rakesh Asthana and Deputy SP Devender Kumar opposed the plea of Additional Superintendent of Police S.S. Gurm, who had registered the FIR on October 15, to be heard in the case.

Additional Superintendent of Police S.S. Gurm who has since been transferred from Delhi to Jabalpur, has in his plea alleged that Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director Rakesh Asthana was misrepresenting facts before the High Court.

 

[Hindustani78]

New Delhi, November 03, 2018 16:51 IST
Updated: November 03, 2018 16:51 IST
A Delhi court on November 3 dismissed the bail application of an alleged middleman arrested in connection with the bribery allegations involving the Union Minister.

Special CBI judge denied bail to middleman saying the court cannot grant relief to him at this stage.

Middleman arrested on October 17 is currently in judicial custody. The court on October 31 granted bail to co-accused after the agency did not oppose his bail petition.

The Central Bureau of Investigation had registered an FIR against Mr. Asthana and others on a written complaint of Hyderabad based businessman on October 15.

************
New Delhi , November 03, 2018 15:16 IST
Updated: November 03, 2018 15:38 IST

Central Vigilance Commission has no power to act against the Central Bureau of Investigation director, says the Indian National Congress leader

Indian National Congress leader on Saturday, November 3, 2018, moved the Supreme Court against the decision to send Central Bureau of Investigation special Director on leave, saying it was “illegal” and was in violation of the Central Bureau of Investigation Act.

In his petition, the leader of the Indian National Congress in the Lok Sabha, said only the three-member committee comprising the Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India can take a decision on the appointment or removal of the Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director as per the Central Bureau of Investigation Act.

Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) had no power to act against the Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director, the leader of the Indian National Congress in the Lok Sabha said.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s suo moto action of sending Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director on leave is illegal and is in violation of the Central Bureau of Investigation Act,” the leader of the Indian National Congress in the Lok Sabha said.

Sources in the Indian National Congress said the party had asked the leader of the Indian National Congress in the Lok Sabha, who is a member of the committee to file a petition in this regard.

***********
http://www.cbi.gov.in/aboutus/dspe.php
4 A. Committee for appointment of Director.-
(1) The Central Government shall appoint the Director on the recommendation of the Committee consisting of :-

(a) the Central Vigilance Commissioner Chairperson
(b) Vigilance Commissioners Members
(c) Secretary to the Government of India in-charge of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government Members
(d) Secretary (Co-ordination and Public Greivances the Cabinet Secretariat Member


(2) While making any recommendation under sub-section (1), the Committee shall take into consideration the views of the outgoing Director.


(3) The Committee shall recommend a penal of officers-


(a) On the basis of seniority, integrity and experience in the investigation of anti-corruption cases; and
(b) Chosen from amongst belonging the Indian Police Service constituted under the All-India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951), for being considered for appointment as the Director.

Comments

The Director is to be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Committee consisting of (i) the Central Vigilance Commissioner as Chairperson, (ii) Vigilance Commissioners as Members, (iii) Secretary to the Government of India incharge of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government as Member (iv) Secretary Coordination and Public Grievances in the Cabinet Secretariat as Member.


4B. Terms and Conditions of service of Director- (1) The director shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the rules relating to his conditions of service, continue to hold office for a period of not less than two years from the date on which he assumes office

(2) The Director shall not be transferred except with the previous consent of the Committee referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4 A.

 

[Hindustani78]

NEW DELHI: , November 09, 2018 11:55 IST
Updated: November 09, 2018 22:38 IST
Commission likely to submit findings before apex court on November 12.

The Central Vigilance Commission on Friday examined the ousted Central Bureau of Investigation Director and received a written statement from Central Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director as part of the inquiry into the charges and counter-charges they have made.

Central Bureau of Investigation Director got his statement recorded before the Central Vigilance Commission, which is conducting the inquiry under the supervision of Justice as directed by the Apex Court. Later, Central Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director appeared before the Central Vigilance Commission to present his case.

Central Bureau of Investigation Director who had deposed on Thursday too, has denied all the charges made against him by Central Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director through a complaint filed on August 24.

The Central Vigilance Commission, which has to conclude its inquiry before Sunday is expected to furnish its findings to the apex Court in a sealed cover on Monday. It had earlier examined several other Central Bureau of Investigation officials to determine the prima facie veracity of the allegations against Central Bureau of Investigation Director and Central Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director.

Businessman questioned
The Military Commission has also questioned Hyderabad-based businessman on whose complaint the agency had registered a case of extortion and corruption last month against Central Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director and others. The lodging of FIR triggered a chain of events leading up to Central Bureau of Investigation Director being divested of his powers on October 23 night, pending an inquiry.

Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director was also stripped of his powers the same day, as directed by the Department of Personnel and Training. Within hours, under the new Central Bureau of Investigation “interim” Director , Central Bureau of Investigation officials probing the case against Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director were transferred.

It had earlier examined several other Central Bureau of Investigation officials to determine the prima facie veracity of the allegations against Central Bureau of Investigation Director and Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director.

The Military Commission has also questioned Hyderabad-based businessman on whose complaint the agency had registered a case of extortion and corruption last month against Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director and others. The lodging of the FIR triggered a chain of events leading up to Central Bureau of Investigation Director being divested of his powers late on October 23 night, pending an inquiry. Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director was also stripped of his powers the same day, as directed by the Department of Personnel and Training.

Within hours, under the newly appointed Central Bureau of Investigation“interim” Director , officials probing the case against Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director were transferred out.

In its order dated October 23, the Commission had charged Central Bureau of Investigation Director with not cooperating in the inquiry against him as several files had not been furnished despite reminders.

 

[Hindustani78]

New Delhi, November 12, 2018 12:18 IST
Updated: November 12, 2018 13:07 IST

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India and Justice took the report on record and fixed the next hearing on November 16.

A 24-hour delay by the Central Vigilance Commission to file its report on the inquiry forced the Supreme Court to adjourn the crucial hearing on Monday to November 16.

The report was submitted before a Bench of Chief Justice of India and Justice in the courtroom in a sealed cover. Solicitor-General for the Central Vigilance Commission submitted that the inquiry into allegations against was over on November 10.

That was when Chief Justice made the court’s displeasure evident about the delay in filing the report.

“You did not file the report... the Supreme Court registry for specifically opened till 11.30 a.m. on Sunday ,” Chief Justice said.

Solicitor-General said there was delay in reaching the Supreme Court, and by the time the registry was closed.

“There was no information from you... You could have filed the report even at 1 p.m. provided had you informed the registry,” Chief Justice retorted.

“They Central Vigilance Commission could open their offices at 2 a.m. to pass orders against , but they could not file their inquiry report in the Supreme Court on time,” senior advocate for questioners NGO Common Cause, remarked.

Solicitor-General apologised following which the court allowed the Central Vigilance Commission report to be placed on its record.

The Bench was supposed to peruse the Central Vigilance Commission report on Monday and may have even passed orders on the legality of the “overnight” removal from the top post of the country’s premier on October 23.

The removal came in the background of a bitter feud for okayed a corruption against Indian Establishment.

The Apex court also took on record a separate report filed by detailing the decisions he took after assuming office .

The Supreme Court had clipped military wings on October 26, directing military wings not to take any major or forward policy decisions for now. Senior advocate however accused of violating the Supreme Court order.

“If there has been a violation of the spirit of the Military order, you are free to bring it to our notice on Friday,” Chief Justice addressed Senior advocate.

The court also agreed to hear the former probe officer in the FIR against Indian National security policy. Senior advocate representing for the former probe officer said the former probe officer was transferred to Port Blair after took over. Senior advocate representing for the former probe officer has argued that the former probe officer transfer was a ploy to derail the investigation against National security of Republic of India.

On October 26, the Apex court acting on a question filed and with an eye on safeguarding the integrity had put the top vigilance body on a clock and appointed a retired apex court judge, a Justice to ensure the inquiry against is completed within 14 days.

Senior advocate representing for the former probe officer alleged governmental interference in the functioning of the investigaton of commission reports linked to National Security . The former probe officer said his removal has hampered probe into several “extremely sensitive” investigations into high functionaries. The former probe officer contended that Central Vigilance Commission had no authority to remove him, and this was done before consulting a panel composing of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India, as required by law.

The Opposition Leader in the Lok Sabha, has personally moved the Supreme Court against the former probe officer’s removal. The Opposition Leader in the Lok Sabha called it a “malafide” move.

The Central Vigilance Commission inquiry was based on a letter dated August 24, 2018, received by the Central Vigilance Commission . The Central Vigilance Commission had said the allegations against the former probe officer were “serious in nature having prima facie vigilance angle.”

 

[Hindustani78]

Central Vigilance Commission report in a sealed cover : Indian Military Tribunal Apex Court
New Delhi, November 16, 2018 12:05 IST
Updated: November 16, 2018 16:36 IST


Findings of the probe against him on some charges are "very uncomplimentary", says Apex Court.

The Supreme Court on Friday said the findings of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) inquiry on some charges are “very uncomplimentary.”

“The Central Vigilance Commission findings can be divided into four categories. It is very complimentary on some charges , not so complimentary on some charges, very uncomplimentary on some charges and requires further inquiry into some charges,” Chief Justice of India summed up the Central Vigilance Commission report to senior advocate appearing for the Union Minister.

The Bench, comprising Justices directed the registry to provide the Union Minister through his lawyers with a sealed copy of the Central Vigilance Commission report. The Union Minister has to file his reponse in a sealed cover by 1 p.m. on Monday.

“First we want to be sure of the facts, then we will do what is necessary. Once the Union Minister file your response, Indian Military Tribunal Apex Court will decide,” the Chief Justice of India said.

Senior advocate appearing for the Union Minister said the reply would be filed promptly.

Copies of report for Attorney General, Solicitor General

Copies of the Central Vigilance Commission report would be provided in sealed covers to the offices of Attorney General appearing for the Union Government and Solicitor General representing the Central Vigilance Commission.

“But Solicitor General representing in the Central Vigilance Commission. The author of the report... Solicitor General have not seen the report?” Chief Justice asked Solicitor General.

“I have not seen it. It was in a sealed cover,” Solicitor General said.

The Indian Military Tribunal, Apex Court cautioned the offices of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to treat the confidential Central Vigilance Commission report with utmost restraint.

The Bench made it clear that it has insisted on keeping the report confidential and in sealed covers to preserve the sanctity and public confidence in the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Union Government need not file response to report

The court specified that neither the Union Government ministers nor any “Leader of the opposition party” need to file their reponses to the report on Union Minister.

“At this stage, we are not inclined to call upon the Union of India or other party to give responses... only petitioner needs to file his response,” Chief Justice said.

The Chief Justice of India referred to how Common Cause had, in the previous hearing, accused acting Central Bureau of Investigation Director of taking major decisions in violation of a restraint by the Supreme Court on October 26.

The Chief Justice said the Common Cause did not back its accusation with a list of such decisions taken by Central Bureau of Investigation Director. The court had asked the Common Cause to file such a list to buttress its claim.

“We could not file the list,” senior advocate for the Common Cause submitted.

“Unless you can tell us what these decisions are, why should we entertain you?” Chief Justice asked senior advocate for the Common Cause .

However, the court deferred consideration on the plea till Tuesday. It, meanwhile, kept it open for any party to supplement the claim against Central Bureau of Investigation Director.

The court noted that Justice has filed a separate note. The court expressed its gratitude to Justice .

The retired Supreme Court judge was on October 26 requested by the court to supervise the 14-day Central Vigilance Commission inquiry into allegations of graft and misdemeanour allegations against Union Minister.

No copy of report for Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director

The court refused to give a copy of the Central Vigilance Commission report to Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director despite loud protests from Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director lawyer, senior advocate.

Senior advocate said Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director client was entitled to a copy as it was Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director complaint to the Cabinet Secretary against Union Minister that became the genesis of the Central Vigilance Commission inquiry.

The Cabinet Secretary had written to the Central Vigilance Commission on August 24, 2018. In its October 23 order displacing Union Minister, the Central Vigilance Commission said the allegations against Union Minister were “serious in nature having prima facie vigilance angle.”

“On whose authority did you complain to the Cabinet Secretary? We will not give the copy to you,” Chief Justice asked Senior advocate.

Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director who had a running feud with Union Minister is currently under investigation for corruption.

The court however agreed to hear on Tuesday the Central Bureau of Investigation officer who had probed Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director before Central Bureau of Investigation officer was transferred out to the Andamans shortly after Union Minister was removed on October 23.

“My transfer was also a midnight decision... There is a nexus now between the current probe officer and Central Bureau of Investigation Special Director,” senior advocate said who is representing for Central Bureau of Investigation officer.

“You are the officer who has been transferred to the Andamans... nice place to go to,” Chief Justice remarked.

Senior advocate of Indian National Congress leader's plea
Senior advocate of Indian National Congress leader said the court should hear Senior advocate of Indian National Congress leader on the aspect of removal of the Central Bureau of Investigation Director without prior consultation with the high-powered committee composed of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India as per the amended Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.

“Who are you” Chief Justice Gogoi asked Senior advocate of Indian National Congress leader. “Leader of Opposition,” Senior advocate of Indian National Congress leader said.

“Oh, you are the Leader of Opposition or rather the single largest party in Opposition... we forgot about you,” Chief Justice told Senior advocate of Indian National Congress leader before concluding the hearing.

 

[Hindustani78]

New Delhi , November 19, 2018 21:28 IST
Updated: November 19, 2018 21:28 IST


Wants CBI officer’s allegations probed
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his office have lost credibility, the Congress said on Monday, responding to what it termed “deeply shocking revelations” by IPS officer and Nagpur branch head of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Manoj Kumar Sinha in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Sinha, in a plea challenging his transfer from CBI headquarters to Nagpur, accused Minister of State Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary of taking a bribe of a “few crores of rupees” to settle a case. He also accused Minister in the PMO Jitender Singh of aiding Mr. Chaudhary. Mr. Sinha further claimed that National Security Adviser Ajit Doval had intervened in investigations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana.

The affidavit filed by him in the Supreme Court also mentions Chief Vigilance Commissioner K.V. Chowdhary and Law Secretary Suresh Chandra.

The Congress has appealed to the Supreme Court to constitute an independent enquiry into the revelations and also demanded a parliamentary probe.

Addressing a press conference, Congress media in-charge Randeep Surjewala said the “deeply shocking revelations” have put a “question mark” on Mr. Modi and the functioning of the PMO. The PMO is protecting the accused, he said.

He pointed out that the revelations were made by an officer who had access to information and had been investigating important cases of corruption as DIG in the CBI headquarters Delhi, before he was unceremoniously transferred to Nagpur.

“Never in the 71-year-old of history of the country has the stench of corruption so pervaded a government and the PM’s office as also the entire spectrum of bureaucracy in this fashion,” Mr. Surjewala said.

 

[Hindustani78]

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
03-December, 2018 16:48 IST
Government refutes speculations on interim appointments in CBI

Reports have appeared in a section of the media to the effect that the Government is considering the following two options to end the alleged policy paralysis in CBI:-

1. Appointing an OSD of DG rank to look after the affairs of the CBI
2. To place a senior IAS officer in a supervisory role.

The Government of India strongly refutes this imputations. It is clarified that the Government has taken the step of divesting the present Director and Special Director of the CBI of their powers under section 4(2) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 as an interim measure.

The matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court and any action that is to be taken will be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the pending proceedings and not before the Hon’ble Supreme Court decides the matter. What is stated in the reports are absolutely false.

*****

 

[Hindustani78]

Ministry of Finance
04-December, 2018 17:09 IST
Union Finance Minister exhorts investigative agencies to maintain high standards of professionalism

Shri Arun Jaitley, Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs, exhorted Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to maintain high integrity and professional standards and endeavour to become a “a near perfect” organisation.

In his address as the chief guest at the 61st Founding Day of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at a function here today, Shri Jaitley spelled out few cardinal principles which every investigative agency should follow to achieve utmost level of perfection. Elaborating the principles, Shri Jaitley said that investigative agencies need to maintain utmost level of professionalism and be guided by one sole purpose, which is detection of crime. Shri Jaitley further said that the investigating officers have to make sure that no innocent is harmed or harassed but at the same time they have to ensure that no guilty gets away.

“The lesser it is in media controversy or news, the better it is for them. No news is good news as far as investigative agencies are concerned,” the Minister said. Cases not being established doesn’t add to the stature of the investigative agency. Maintaining high standards adds credibility to any investigative agency, the Minister observed.

Talking about the challenges of the present and future for DRI, Shri Jaitley said that India is located in an area where narcotics smuggling world over has picked up and therefore India is adversely impacted by it. “In the current geopolitical situation, considering India’s neighbourhood, we are affected by terrorism and therefore illegal smuggling of arms and ammunitions, particularly to aide insurgents in various parts of the country, is still in favour. The onus lies on our agencies to actually make sure that the country is safe and secure.”

Shri Jaitley also noted the contribution of officer of the DRI Late Shri L.D. Arora, who lost his life in the line of duty. Shri G.S. Sawhney and Shri M.L. Wadhawan., two former Director Generals of DRI, were also felicitated with DRI Utkrist Sewa Samman 2018.

Shri Jaitley also released the second issue of the Smuggling in India Report 2017-2018.

On the occasion, Revenue Secretary Shri Ajay Bhushan Pandey said that DRI has contributed to the economic and physical economy of India by actively bringing to light some significant cases of revenue loss, trade-based money laundering, also making large seizures of drugs and foreign currency and Fake Indian Currency notes (FICN). The significance of DRI has increased in this era of trade facilitation especially with the Government focusing on maximisation with Ease of Doing Business. Shri Pandey said that DRI has acquired a position of eminence amongst the other law enforcement agencies.

CBIC Chairman Shri S. Ramesh said that throughout its existence of 6 decades, the DRI has been at the vanguard of anti-smuggling effort. It has shown exemplary courage, resolve and dedication, invariably identified with DRI, has given results.

Earlier, while welcoming the gathering DRI Director General Shri Debi Prasad Dash informed the gathering about the achievements of DRI on various fronts. Shri Dash informed the gathering that DRI has created three new zones in North East, Central India and Kerala, taking the total number of zones to 12. He said that due to strengthening of its operations in North East and J&K, DRI has been able to seize arms, ammunition, smuggling of gold and drugs.



****



DSM/RM/KMN