CBI concludes arguments on state’s demand for SIT Anil Deshmukh case

The CBI on Wednesday concluded its arguments in the petition filed by the Maharashtra government seeking the constitution of a special investigation team (SIT), headed by a retired judge, to take over the probe on the corruption allegations against former home minister Anil Deshmukh

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday concluded its arguments in the petition filed by the Maharashtra government seeking the constitution of a special investigation team (SIT), headed by a retired judge, to take over the probe on the corruption allegations against former home minister Anil Deshmukh. The first information report (FIR) against Deshmukh was filed by the central agency on April 21.

The petition filed by the Maharashtra government sought the constitution of a special investigation team (SIT), headed by a retired judge, to take over the probe on the corruption allegations against former home minister Anil Deshmukh. CBI argued against it. (Hindustan Times)

In its closing arguments, the CBI submitted that the reliefs sought by the state for their two top officers namely chief secretary Sitaram Kunte and director general of police (DGP) Sanjay Pandey, who was summoned by the CBI were misconceived, as it could only be sought by the officers themselves. The CBI argued that the claim of the state that the investigation by CBI would be prejudiced, as its current director had a role to play, was misconceived and the petition was only intended to mislead the court.

The division bench of justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Sarang Kotwal, while hearing the petition filed by the state government, was informed by special counsel Darius Khambatta for the state that the reference of the conversation between DGP Pandey and former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh by the CBI in its arguments on Tuesday, was clearly intended to influence the mind of the court.

Khambatta stated that though the CBI claimed that it was only calling upon Pandey in connection with the letter written by Singh to the CBI director on April 19, by referring to the conversation between the two, CBI wanted to influence the court against the state of Maharashtra.

Singh had written to the CBI informing it about Pandey’s attempt to make him withdraw the letter written to chief minister Uddhav Thackeray on March 20, while the CBI was conducting the HC-ordered preliminary probe in the corruption allegations against Deshmukh, by Singh and a complaint by Dr Jaishri Patil.

Additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi for CBI, however, refuted the claims of Khambatta and said that it was just an attempt by the state to mislead the court and draw the attention of the bench away from the matter on hand.

While continuing his arguments, opposing the transfer of the CBI investigation to an SIT, Lekhi submitted that the grievance of the state that CBI director Subodh Jaiswal could not oversee the investigation as he was a part of the instances that were being investigated, was misplaced as the investigating officer was someone else.

Lekhi further submitted that the grievance against Jaiswal could be raised only by Pandey as he was the aggrieved party and the state had no role in it. He also referred to Supreme Court judgements which established that only an aggrieved person could seek transfer if he apprehended a prejudice in the investigation.

Lekhi concluded CBI’s arguments stating that there was malice on the part of the state of Maharashtra in filing the petition seeking transfer of investigation to SIT and hence it should not be entertained.

While responding to CBI’s submissions, Khambatta drew the attention of the court to the material which CBI wanted to place before the court in a sealed cover and said that if the material was crucial to the investigation, the CBI should not submit it in a sealed cover, as the state was not averse to the investigation, a fact that it had been maintaining since the inception of the petition. Khambatta submitted that the only reason for submitting material in a sealed cover was to cause prejudice.

The state government will continue its rejoinder on Thursday.