| Company | Value | Change | %Change |
|---|
Special judge Sanjeev Aggarwal made the prima facie observation in a case against CG Power and Industrial Solutions and its former promoter Gautam Thapar in an alleged fraud and wrongful loss to the public money to the tune of ₹2,435 crore caused to the State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Mumbai.
“The investigating agency has something material to conceal from the court, to which they want to put a veil of secrecy, so that truth should never come out and see the light of the day and remains embedded in the files, i.e., the crime file,” the judge said.
Read more: Delhi High Court declares ‘Ratan Tata’ a well-known trademark, bars unauthorised use
The court on February 10 further said that despite clear directions in an order passed on February 3, the CBI failed to produce the crime files for its perusal.
It said after passing the order, the CBI had sufficient time to examine it and challenge the same, if they desired.
“Therefore, the non compliance of the order is an act of clear-cut defiance and recalcitrance on part of the CBI, which kind of conveys in a subtle manner that they do not care or obey the order(s) of the court, which is a matter of grave concern, same is also contrary to the spirit of Article 21 of The Constitution of India, which ensures fair investigations and consequent fair trial,” it observed.
Read more: Donald Trump eases enforcement of law banning overseas bribes
The court directed the head of the CBI branch concerned to ensure that the investigating officer appeared along with the files on February 21 “without fail”.
The judge said without the explanation, which was sought by the court, he was “handicapped” and not in a “position to form an opinion” on whether further investigation should be ordered in the case aside from examining the important aspects the agency might have missed.
On a prima facie reading, the court said, of the main and the supplementary chargesheet revealed the probe was not done properly but in a “perfunct” and casual manner.
Read more: Trump warns ‘all hell’ will break loose if Gaza hostages not returned
It said the probe had to be carried out in a fair and transparent manner.
“After the investigation is over, the final report is filed in the court, then the court has every right to see as to what had transpired from the registration of the FIR till the culmination of the chargesheet/final report including the crime file, which is part of the investigations… Any concealment or non production of the crime file will only enhance the suspicion that investigating agency has probably something to blot out from the court,” it said.
The court noted it was a case of “huge magnitude, impinging upon the honest tax payers of the country and the state exchequer”.
Read more: Trump signs executive orders on steel, aluminum tariffs
It went on to add, “Non production of the crime files may lead to an prima facie inference that the probe agency was concealing something important which they do not probably want to come out in open, which itself per se makes out the existence of unusual and extra ordinary circumstances, which warrants perusal of the crime file by the court.” In its chargesheet, the CBI alleged huge amounts of bank loans were diverted by the accused entities to related parties for which adjustment entries were made in the account books.
The investigation showed the accused availed loans against securities without disclosing credit facilities availed from other banks, the agency said.
The accused borrowed funds “by misrepresentation and falsification of account books, entries and vouchers”, it added.
Read more: Delhi elections: Take a look at probable women chief ministerial candidates
The SBI reportedly had an exposure of 12.81% in the default amount of ₹2,435 crore, on behalf of the consortium of 11 other lender banks, including Yes Bank, which has the second highest exposure at 11.75%, it said.
The accused company has industrial and power systems facilities in India, Indonesia and Hungary.