MPLADS fund misappropriation: Court acquits Rajeev Shukla’s ex-PA, contractor

Former personal assistant of Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Shukla and a contractor have been acquitted of allegedly misappropriating MP Local Area Development Scheme funds due to lack of direct evidence.

Updated on: May 28, 2023, 24:27:03 IST

By Charul Shah

Prefer HTon Google

Share via

Copy link

MUMBAI: A metropolitan magistrate court on Tuesday acquitted former personal assistant of Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Shukla and a contractor booked for allegedly misappropriating the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme funds (MPLADS). The court observed that Shukla failed to appear before it and the prosecution had failed to bring any direct evidence against the accused.

Shukla’s former assistant Ajit Patade and a contractor from Ahmednagar, Tushar Pote, were booked by the Versova police in 2009 following a complaint filed by the former Indian Premier League chairman that the duo misused his letterheads and forged his signatures to get the MP funds.

The prosecution claimed that Pote used to seek funds from Patade whenever he received requests for construction works from various institutions.

Shukla had claimed that he had moved to Delhi after becoming a Member of Parliament and would come to Mumbai only for his personal work. In the city, the MP claimed that he used to operate from his personal office located in Juhu and used to keep some of his letterheads, visiting cards and envelopes in his house. Patade took the letterheads without his approval and used the same to obtain his MP funds, Shukla alleged.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses, employees of a school, which received Shukla’s MP funds for construction of classrooms. The rooms were constructed by Pote. One of the witnesses had claimed that the duo had misappropriated ₹10 lakh, whereas the other had stated the amount was ₹15 lakh.

The court, however, said that the testimony of the witnesses was formal in nature and was not adequate to bring home the guilt of the accused. It said that though sufficient opportunity was given to the prosecution, they failed to examine the informant and other material witnesses.