The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed a petition by Chhagan Bhujbal's son, Pankaj, seeking review into an earlier order of the court directing formation of a special investigation team (SIT) to look into allegations of money laundering by the former minister and his family.
The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed a petition by Chhagan Bhujbal's son, Pankaj, seeking review into an earlier order of the court directing formation of a special investigation team (SIT) to look into allegations of money laundering by the former minister and his family.
A division bench headed by chief justice Mohit Shah dismissed the plea by Pankaj on the grounds that the HC has ordered an "inquiry" into the alleged irregularities and not an "investigation".
While an investigation refers to collection of material evidence and making arrests, if necessary, after registration of an FIR, an inquiry points to a preliminary probe based on allegations where authorities establish if a matter is fit to be 'investigated'.
The HC had on December 18, 2014 directed setting up of the SIT to probe 11 allegations of irregularities relating to transfer over Rs1crore into bank accounts of private companies run by Bhujbal, his sons, and employees of Mumbai Education Trust and their family members in connection with construction of the new Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi and two buildings in Mumbai.
Pankaj had objected to the role of Enforcement Directorate (ED), its director is a part of the SIT, on the grounds that the agency could not investigate any matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act without approval from the Centre.
The judges, however, said that the SIT, has been asked to "inquire" into the allegations and not "investigate" and hence there was no need for permission or approval from the central government. The report is to be submitted by February 28.
Meanwhile, Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, counsel for the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), which is also a part of the SIT, informed the court that it would not be able to submit a final report by February 28 as the scope of the probe was vast. To this, the court said that the SIT should submit an interim report on that date.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}