Names omitted, officers remitted?

 

 

 

 

THERE isdefinitely more to it than meets the eye in the Rs 6,000 crore Mahadev Book Online Betting Scam. Before some names went missing from the FIR, the State Economic Offences Investigation and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SEOIACB) in Chhattisgarh, had received clearance from General Administration Department (GAD), Chhattisgarh Government, under Section 17(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), for initiating anti-graft probe against top bureaucrats and senior police officials of Chhattisgarh Government. Section 17A stipulates a mandatory requirement from competent authority to conduct enquiry into alleged offence committed by a public servant. Though this fresh move will be hard to comprehend for the common public, it is bound to create ripples in the administrative machinery of Chhattisgarh. Legal experts and many senior cops having served with prosecution earlier, however, beg to differ on this development.

 

They categorically cited that the FIR failing to ‘identity’ (naming) individual police officers and asking clearance under Section 17(A) of PC Act, is not at all on sole footing. “If at all there is prima-facie material to probe against the police officers, then they should have been duly named and identified in the FIR,” they remarked. Knowledgeable sources averred that the State Government gave the clearance under Section 17(A) of PC Act in matter of days from GAD, a key portfolio kept by Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai himself, and thereby implying that there is ‘prima-facie’ material. “The 17 (A) PC Act clearance came from GAD within a week after 2005-batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Amresh Mishra took up the reins of State’s anti-corruption watchdog on March 12,” sources maintained. Sources recalled that a similar clearance under 17 (A) was obtained from GAD soon after SEOIACB, at that time spearheaded by Durgesh Madhav Awasthi, registered an FIR on January 17 in Rs 2161 crore liquor scam and on February 25, it mounted search and seizure operation on the premises of 13 people, including former Chief Secretary Vivek Dhand (retired IAS officer), former Secretary of Commerce and Industry department Anil Tuteja (retired IAS officer), then commissioner of excise department Niranjan Das, Excise Officer Ashok Kumar Singh, businessman Anwar Dhebar (brother of Congress leader and Raipur Mayor Aijaz Dhebar), Arvind Singh and Siddarth Singhania in Raipur.

 

The swoop also covered premises of then special secretary of Excise Department and Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited Arunpati Tripathi (Indian Telecom Service officer) in Durg district, then assistant commissioner of excise department Korba Saurabh Bakshi. It also covered premises linked to businessman Rajendra Jaiswal of M/s Welcome Distilleries and Bhupendra Pal Singh Bhatia of M/s Bhatia Wine Merchant in Bilaspur district and Naveen Kedia of M/s Chhattisgarh Distillery Limited in Kumhari area (Durg district). Besides, raid was also launched at M/s Prism Hologram and Security Private Limited of Vidhu Gupta in Greater Noida Uttar Pradesh. “The searches took place after the FIR was registered under sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988/Amended Act 2018 and the Indian Penal Code, in the liquor scam, which was based on the complaint of the ED, wherein 70 persons, including several Congress leaders, and companies were named and identified,” the sources pointed out. Unlike in the Mahadev App scam, according to sources, the ‘omission’ of names of certain individuals/top bureaucrats and senior police from the FIR, has given a scope of ‘remission’ to these alleged officials, who could have been brought under the ambit of search and seizure operations.

 

“This is in total contrast to ED’s multiple communications to SEOIACB that ‘protection money’ was paid to multiple police officials including OSDs to ex-chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel by the promoters of Mahadev online book,” the sources added. One such last communiqué dated March 1, 2024, by ED’s Deputy Director Hemant requested the State police to examine the prosecution complaints and other documents shared and take cognisance of offences under relevant provisions of PC Act, 1988 (as amended) and IPC against all the individuals featuring in the prosecution complaints filed by the directorate, who have affiliated themselves with the illegal betting activities. Subsequently, the next day on March 4, SEOIACB registered the FIR No-6/2024 in the scam, based on this communiqué addressed to Deputy Inspector General of Police, SEOIACB.

 

‘The Hitavada’ has accessed the copy of this 12-page draft, including the whole copy of FIR No-6/2024, along with several enclosures attached by the federal agency dated March 1, 2024, which had been so far kept elusive and out of reach, of the mediapersons and many inquisitive bureaucrats in Chhattisgarh. “Granting of clearance under Section 17 (A) of PC Act clearly indicates that they all are very much under investigation, but there is need for a serious investigation which should help in identifying and tracing the PoC and amassing of huge wealth by the alleged officers, which are beyond the known source of their income,” underscored a former SEIOACB officer. Sources, however, pointed out that the chronology involved in the whole process now appears to be a ‘hogwash’.A BJP leader, who wished not to be quoted, expressed deep regret stating that had the FIR of SEOIACB named the top bureaucrats and senior police officials, it would have fulfilled another promise (guarantee) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, when he during a rally in Surajpur district of Chhattisgarh had urged electorates to vote for BJP if they wanted the accused in Mahadev App scandal punished. (Concluded) 

 

 

“An FIR is treated as part of investigation. Therefore, permission seeking the clearance under Section 17 (A) in case of Mahadev App should have been taken before the registration of FIR under relevant provisions of PC Act,” commented a veteran BJP office-bearer, on condition of anonymity. Lamenting the futility of Section 17 (A) clearance, this party worker elucidated that the flaws in the whole process which is eventually going to collapse. “SEOIACB first registers FIR against ‘unknown’ police officers and then seeks permission under 17 (A) against a few police officers.

 

This will weaken the entire process in the eyes of law,” he said, while referring to the recent humiliation faced by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in apex court in Rs 2200 crore liquor scam of Anil Tuteja and others, on technical grounds of absence of ‘Predicate’ offence. According to this party worker, who has in-depth knowledge of law and legal matters, “It is turn of SEOIACB to face similar kind of humiliation in the court for committing gross technical irregularities, which will benefit the alleged ‘police officers’ having allegiance to a certain coterie inclined to previous Congress regime in Chhattisgarh.”

 

He affirmed that the checklists laid down under the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for matters relating to 17 (A) of PC Act clearly asks to furnish mandatory details regarding name, designation or office held by the public servant against whom the allegation of an offence under PC Act has been made, in addition to the post or office held by such public servant at the time of alleged commission of offence. “In case of Mahadev App, the FIR in SEOIACB, has everything else, but there are prerequisite details. Hence, there are bleak chances if the alleged top bureaucrats and senior police officials, whose names are missing from the FIR, would ever be held accountable,” he added.