Devdiscourse
Development News Edition
Give Feedback
write for Us

CBI bribery case: Additional SP Gurm drags name of RAW Special Director Samant Goel

Gurm, who was transferred along with other CBI officials in the feud between CBI Director Alok Verma and Asthana, has sought to be made a party in the petition filed by Asthana.


Devdiscourse News Desk new delhi India
Updated: 31-10-2018 19:39 IST
CBI bribery case: Additional SP Gurm drags name of RAW Special Director Samant Goel

"Further, the ASG has advised that whenever a cognizable offence comes to the notice of law enforcement agency, the FIR/PE must be registered and it should not await the previous approval under Section 17A," Gurm said. (Image Credit: Twitter)

CBI Additional SP S S Gurm told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday there was "reasonable" apprehension that the agency would not effectively contest the petition filed by Special Director Rakesh Asthana seeking the quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case.

Gurm has also dragged the name of RAW Special Director Samant Goel in the bribery case involving Asthana, CBI DSP Devender Kumar and Dubai-based businessmen -- Manoj Prasad and Somesh Prasad, who are brothers.

He has alleged that Asthana was misleading the court by placing "selective" facts before it.

Gurm, who was transferred along with other CBI officials in the feud between CBI Director Alok Verma and Asthana, has sought to be made a party in the petition filed by Asthana.

The officer, who was transferred from Delhi to Jabalpur, has sought an opportunity to be heard in the case.

In an application before the high court, the additional SP gave the sequence of events in the case in which he was in the team probing the complaint filed by Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana who has accused Asthana and others of taking a bribe to settle case relating meat exporter Moin Qureshi.

He said Asthana was canvassing several contentions in support of his quashing petition and sought to place relevant materials and important facts which would enable to effectively adjudicate the matter.

"It is submitted that Asthana is seeking to mislead the court by selectively placing relevant facts for the kind consideration of the court.

"The applicant (Gurm) bears a reasonable apprehension that the CBI is seeking to protect and support Asthana and may not effectively contest his petition," he said.

Gurm stated that he has gone through the complaint filed by Sana which appeared to be genuine and the matter was processed as per lawful procedure for registration of the regular case against Asthana and others.

He submitted that Sana had submitted a complaint to the CBI regarding harassment and extortion by certain private persons, besides Asthana and Kumar.

Gurm said that as per Sana's complaint he was repeatedly summoned by the CBI in relation to the Moin Qureshi case and came across a couple of middlemen -Somesh Prasad and Manoj Prasad during his visit to Dubai, who claimed that they have very good connections in the CBI and they would "help" him for an amount of Rs 5 crores payable to a "CBI Officer" through them.

"Sana stated that the Prasad Brothers disclosed the identity of the aforementioned CBI Officer as Asthana," he said.

Referring to Sana's complaint, the officer said the investigation conducted till date had revealed that the act of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification pertain to two specific periods i.e. December 2017 and October 2018.

He claimed that an amount of Rs 2.95 crore in December 2017 and Rs 36 Lacs in October this year was paid as illegal gratification in the name Asthana.

"The investigation further revealed that several summonses were issued to Sana prior to the date of payment of illegal gratification and these summonses mysteriously stopped getting issued immediately from the date of payment of illegal gratification to Asthana," the petition claimed.

He said there was incriminating evidence which establishes "clear, cogent and an unmistakable" link between Sana to the Prasad Brothers to Goel and culminating at Asthana.

The petition said that investigations further revealed that the co-accused CBI DSP Kumar sought to implicate the Director CBI and Rajya Sabha MP C M Ramesh in order to shield Asthana.

"It is highly unfortunate that before the investigation could be concluded and the entire guilt could be unravelled, the Investigation Officer of the said case was transferred overnight from Delhi to Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands," he said.

The officer said that he has dutifully followed the guidelines of the Supreme Court while registering the FIR against Asthana and is extremely "anguished at "misrepresentation" of the facts.

Justifying registration of FIR, Gurm said the CBI had sought an opinion from Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha on the issue whether Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act shall be retrospectively applicable and whether prior approval of the Competent Authority is required before registration of the FIR.

"Vide his written opinion, the ASG has opined that there is no requirement of obtaining the sanction of the competent authority under Section 17A if an enquiry/ inquiry or investigation has already commenced on the date of coming into force of Section 17A of the P.C. Act.

"Further, the ASG has advised that whenever a cognizable offence comes to the notice of law enforcement agency, the FIR/PE must be registered and it should not await the previous approval under Section 17A," Gurm said.

He has also sought dismissal of Asthana's petition.

The separate petitions of Asthana, Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad seeking to quash the FIR against them are scheduled to be heard by Justice Najmi Waziri on Thursday.

(With inputs from agencies.)

COUNTRY : India

POST A COMMENT