Jurisdiction of CBI to probe scams challenged

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 14: Amidst ongoing debate over the verdict of Gauhati High Court on Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a petition has been filed in the State High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the centre’s premier investigating agency in probing a bank scam in J&K on the basis of information given by some private persons. The petitioner has also sought quashing of resolution whereby the agency was established.
While allowing the petition, Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has issued notices to the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and CBI. The High Court has also directed that the proceedings vis-à-vis scam, before the Special Judge Anti Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
According to the CBI case, M/s Shiva Overseas, a firm in which Uttam Chand was partner of 85% share and Ashok Singh Manhas holding 15% share, had applied with UCO Bank for CC limit to the tune of Rs 50 lakh on March 13, 2008 and offered fake/ non-existing property as a collateral security towards the bank.
The proposed land measuring four kanal and five marla situated at village Changerwan was said to be owned by Ashok Kumar Manhas but during investigation it came to fore that the land was not belonging to Ashok Singh Manhas and documents relating to the same were forged/fabricated.
It was also established that Ashok Singh Manhas and Uttam Chand got false revenue documents prepared in connivance with some unknown persons. The CBI investigation further revealed that UCO Bank Ashoka Market Raghunath Bazar in criminal conspiracy with Ashok Singh Manhas and Uttam Chand processed the loan on the basis of false documents and the concerned bank Branch Manager did not make any pre-sanctioned visit as per the rules before the sanction of CC limit/ loan.
Accordingly, the loan proposed for CC limit to the tune of Rs 35 lakh was sanctioned by the Zonal New Business Committee Delhi on the basis of recommendations of bank officials.
Ramesh Koul, the then DIG (now retired) was the guarantor for the loan facilities as per the duly executed agreement. The accused borrowers exhausted the CC limit of Rs 35 lakh in September 2008 and thereafter Uttam Chand approached the bank to allow an overdraft of Rs 10 lakh in the CC account on September 10, 2008. On the same day, the accused bank official conceded the request of the accused and accordingly an another account was opened in the name of M/s Shiva Overseas and overdraft of Rs 10 lakh was allowed from CC limit and transferred to another account.
The borrowers did not repay the loan in both the accounts and used the money for their personal ends. As a result of criminal conspiracy, abuse of official position and fabrication/forgery of documents both the loan turned NPA on December 18, 2009 which resulted outstanding of Rs 50,31,214 causing undue loss to the exchequer.
Aggrieved over the CBI action, Ashok Singh Manhas filed a petition in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of CBI in probing the alleged scam and seeking quashment of resolution No.4/31/61-T dated April 1, 1963 whereby the agency was established.
“Neither the CBI was called upon to lodge the FIR and investigate the present matter either by any of the State agency or by the order or direction of any competent court of law”, the petition said, adding “neither the present dispute was inter-state or state-union dispute nor has any involvement of Union Governor”.
The CBI proceeded to register an FIR on the basis of information given by some person without appreciating that the CBI has transgressed into jurisdiction of State Police by presuming and claiming that the affairs of the State are not been run in accord with the constitution and proceeded as if it was not central agency but a State Police agency which could take cognizance of any matter in routine or merely because some allegations were made by any private person, the petitioner said.
With these submissions, the petitioner sought quashing of FIR, proceedings before the Special Judge Anticorruption Court (CBI Cases) and resolution whereby the CBI was established.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here