SIT findings have nothing to do with Digvijaya: Justice Bhushan
Chairman of Special Investigation Team (SIT) Justice Chandresh Bhushan on Monday said the SIT’s findings on the pen drive received from the MP high court had nothing to do with Congress leader Digvijaya Singh.
The SIT, in its findings about the pen drive on April 22, said it appeared to be forged, which the court subsequently took on record and endorsed on April 24.
The BJP had since been taking a dig at Singh for ‘targeting’ CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan with ‘concocted’ evidence.
In an exclusive to HT on Monday, Justice Bhushan said their opinion was only about the pen drive which the HC had given them for examination.
“Singh has provided us material separately with his complaint and it’s being examined but the high court had given us a pen drive which they had received from the Delhi high court and our opinion is limited to that. It has nothing to do with Digvijaya Singh,” Justice Bhushan said.
He further clarified that their observation on the pen drive was only prima facie and not conclusive.
When asked whether the SIT was contemplating any action against whistleblower Prashant Pandey as the high court had given it a free hand to decide the action to be taken against him, if any, Justice Bhushan said it was too early to talk about the action as the matter was still under investigation.
“Our opinion that the pen drive is forged is also a primary observation. Then, we shall also investigate as to where he got hold of the excel sheets, who provided him the excel sheets. We need to know all this,” he said.
Congress dares chief minister to recommend CBI probe into scam
The Congress has dared CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan to recommend a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the MPPEB scam.
The party said if Chouhan had got a clean-chit as claimed by him, then he should have no hitches in demanding for a CBI inquiry in the case.
Congress said the BJP leaders were falsely claiming that they had got clean-chit in the PEB scam by wrongly interpreting the court’s observation, and were trying to create confusion through their statements.