Anil Deshmukh compares Param Bir Singh’s letter to Harshad Mehta’s allegations

[ad_1]

The lawyer for former state interior minister Anil Deshmukh quoted the “unprecedented press conference” of 1993 securities scam accused – Harshad Mehta, in which he made “unsubstantiated” allegations that he paid Rs 1 crore to the then prime minister, while arguing his quashing of the FIR’s petition in the Bombay High Court on Friday.

“It was in the ballroom of the Taj Mahal hotel. Mehta had a galaxy of top lawyers sitting next to him. He was carrying a suitcase and said, ‘Oh, here’s how a crore fits in the suitcase. This is how I went to deliver 1 crore to the Indian Prime Minister (PV Narsimha Rao), ”said senior lawyer Amit Desai.

The late lawyer Ram Jethmalani was Mehta’s lawyer. Incidentally, his son, lead lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani, represents ex-CP Param Bir Singh, who accused Anil Deshmukh of bribery, leading to these proceedings.

Judges SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar heard Deshmukh’s motion challenging the FIR registered by the CBI against him and other strangers under the Corruption Prevention Act read with Article 120B (criminal association) of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR was filed after the Chief Justice’s Bench ordered a preliminary inquiry against Deshmukh on April 5, 2021 and called on the CBI to take further action in accordance with the law.

Attempting to draw a parallel between Mehta’s allegations against the prime minister and Param Bir’s allegations against Deshmukh, Desai said the legislature offered certain safeguards to protect officials from these savage accusations.

He claimed that the CBI required state consent under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and section 17A (sanction) of the Prevention of Crime Act. corruption despite the HC having ordered the investigation.

“Can the reasoned order of the court not substitute for the satisfaction of the government?” the bench questioned Desai, repeatedly pointing out that the HC has recorded its prima facie satisfaction with the need for an investigation into the allegations against Deshmukh.

“Here the court found it necessary to say act in accordance with the law, despite the presumption that the executive is acting in accordance with the law. The CBI has a duty to seek permission from the state before the preliminary investigation under of Article 17A of the PC Law, “Desai said, adding:” Even Kasab has benefited from the rule of law in this country. The investigation is illegal. “

He argued that the law is clear, that state sanction would not be required under Section 17A of the PC Act if the official is caught in a trap case. However, a sanction would be necessary if the offense was committed in the exercise of official functions.

Desai then linked the sanction requirement to the facts of this case. He said the two main allegations against Deshmukh were that he had acted dishonestly in the performance of his public duties and that he was aware of API Sachin Waze’s reinstatement, which is now rejected.

“If, according to CBI’s FIR, all of his actions were in the exercise of his public duty, then would the 17A bar not apply? Moreover, having knowledge is not an offense. Therefore, his knowledge of the reinstatement of Waze would not be an offense under section 7 of the PC Act, “he said.

The case will now be heard on Monday.

[Anil Deshmukh vs CBI]

[ad_2]