Disproportionate assets: CBI court dismisses plea of former ED Dy Director seeking discharge from case

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Advertisement

Chandigarh, May 23

Finding a prima facie case, Jagjit Singh Special, Judge, CBI court, UT, has rejected applications of Gurnam Singh, his wife and son for discharging them from a case registered for allegedly acquiring assets disproportionate to known source.

Earlier, the CBI had registered an FIR in the case for offences punishable under Section 13 (2), r/w13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120 B of the IPC in 2017.

The applications were filed by Gurnam Singh, Dalip Kaur and Sukhmanjeet Singh for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The counsels of the applicants said after completion of the investigation a charge sheet had been filed against the accused persons, but only bald allegations were levelled and no evidence was submitted.

The income of accused Gurnam Singh had been grossly undervalued and assets overvalued, counsels added. Accused Dalip Kaur and Sukhmanjeet Singh also claimed that they had been charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 120-B and 109, IPC, along with other offences. Counsels also argued that the agricultural income of the accused persons was not considered. Whereas, it was clear that properties by the accused were from the consideration received from the sale of properties, counsels added.

“Sukhmanjeet Singh has given all information of his assets to his department and there is no evidence of conspiracy on file against him. No approval has been taken from the state government to prosecute him as required under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,” counsels said.

On the other hand PK Dogra, senior public prosecutor for the CBI submitted that as per information, it was revealed that during his tenure as Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate (ED), accused Gurnam Singh had amassed huge amount and benami properties through illegal and corrupt means. There were several suspicious cash transactions in his bank, and the other accused had criminally conspired and abetted in the offence, he said.

During investigation the accused had not submitted any evidence regarding the cash balance found in their accounts and unregistered sale agreements had no evidentiary value, he added.

After hearing arguments the court dismissed the applications of the accused. The court in the order stated that at the time of framing of charge, detailed analysis was not necessary and discussion of the materials in detail was also not required.

The court further stated, “When the evidence as collected by the CBI is produced during hearing, the accused will get every opportunity to counter the same.”