While deposing before the two-member Adarsh inquiry commission, Brigadier Deepak Saxena from the state military headquarters said that the army had given an ‘incorrect’ reply in the Parliament in 2003 that the land on which the controversial Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society today stands, was not under its occupation.
Saxena further said that those officials, who could have stopped the construction work of the 31-storey building, did not do so as they were members of the society. “All officers, who had the decision making authority with respect to the subject land from 1999 till July 12, 2010, were members of the society,” said Saxena.
According to him, Brigadier Parvinder Singh had provided this misleading answer to the army headquarters. He said, “Brigadier Parvinder Singh is not a beneficiary. However, his superior, GS Sihota, is a member of the Adarsh society.
This reply was given on the basis of the information provided by the Maharashtra, Gujarat & Goa, Mumbai area, and the then general officer, commanding-in-charge, was Major General TK Kaul, who also a member of the Adarsh society.” Saxena also stated that by August 1999, the defence ministry was aware that the building was going to be built on the land in question and yet did not file any suit for injunction to prevent construction.
He claimed that following a newspaper article in 2003, HQ Southern Command, was aware of the names of its officers, who wanted flats in the society. Even the defence ministry did not take any action against them.
Won’t defreeze Adarsh accounts: HC
A petition filed by the controversial Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society challenging the freezing of its two bank accounts by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), was dismissed by the Bombay high court on Wednesday.
The anti-corruption wing of the CBI had frozen two bank accounts of the society on January 31, 2011, after registering a case against 14 accused, including several members of the society.
Dismissing the plea, the division bench of justice Ranjana Desai and justice Ranjit More said, “The amounts lying in the bank accounts, which create suspicion about commission of crime, cannot be allowed to deplete.”
The money would have great relevance at the conclusion of the trial, if the court decides to impose a fine, the bench ruled. The court also refused to interfere with the course of investigation adopted by the central agency. “Investigating agency must be given a free hand.”
VA Thorat, counsel for Adarsh, had contended that the CBI could not have frozen bank accounts of the society, since it is not an accused in the offence registered by the agency.
Discarding the contention noting that amplitude of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court said, “It empowers the police to seize properties not only of the accused but of any of his relatives or any other person who could be concerned with the said property.”
The court added, “The requirement is only that it must be found under the circumstances which create suspicion about the commission of an offence.”