Anil Deshmukh: Bombay High Court rejects state and Anil Deshmukh quashing petitions against CBI FIR; also refuses a stay | Bombay News
The state had requested the cancellation of two paratroopers from an April 21 FIR recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against former interior minister and NCP chief Anil Deshmukh.
The state had called for the removal of paragraphs referring to the reinstatement of Sachin Waze after 15 years as Deputy Police Inspector last year, being assigned most of the “sensational cases”, and alleged “exercise undue influence âon transfers and assignments and therefore on the performance of police duties.
The state said these paragraphs went beyond the HC’s April 5 instruction regarding a CBI Preliminary Inquiry (PE) into a complaint filed by lawyer Jaishri Patil on the basis of the March 20 letter of the IWC. former Mumbai police chief Param Bir Singh alleging “corrupt embezzlement”. by Deshmukh, the state had argued and would lead to a âtravelingâ investigation into state administration and demoralize the police force.
The HC first announced the rejection of the state’s request. A bench of Judges SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar, while ruling, said the CBI may investigate assignments and transfers of police offices as long as those transfers and assignments relate to allegations against Deshmukh in the order of the HC of April 5.
The order of April 5 which ordered a preliminary investigation by the CBI “cannot, however, be interpreted as giving unlimited powers to the CBI to investigate” all transfers and assignments unrelated to the order, said the judiciary.
He added that the CBI, a leading investigative agency, must be fully aware of its responsibility, the duty of the police constituted under state laws or special laws to act in accordance with the law of the land. . They only serve the law. ”
Lord Denning had described the duty of the police as follows: âI consider it the duty of the Commissioner of Police as of any Chief of Police to uphold the law of the land. He must take steps to post his men so that crimes can be detected and honest citizens can go about their business in peace. â¦ .He is not the servant of anyone except the law itself. ”
“We specify that the observations are made” only for the request of the State, specified the HC, and not on the other pending requests.
The HC dismissed the motion for annulment filed by former State Interior Minister Anil Deshmukh against a CBI FIR registered against him and against other unknown persons for breach of undue earnings by an official under the law on the prevention of corruption and criminal association. Deshmukh had said that the FIR was “vague” and without merit.
State attorney Rafique Dada asked for an “interim arrangement to help us review the judgment.”
The CBI, through its attorney Tushar Mehta, said it made a statement not to pursue its request for certain letters and wiretap report reports because the hearing took place late in the night of May. He said he cannot be extended now. Dada then requested a stay of the judgment for two weeks. The HC did not accept the request, as Mehta said there was nothing to be left.
Singh alleged that Deshmukh asked API Sachin Waze to collectively collect Rs 100 crore each month from the nearly 2,000 bars and restaurants in Mumbai.
The ordinance also indicated that the CBI could after the EP take other measures “in accordance with the law”. Deshmukh, then Cabinet Minister (Home) resigned shortly after the April 5 ordinance.
The Supreme Court had dismissed the petitions then filed by the state and Deshmukh against the HC order.
The CBI after its MOU, on April 21 registered the first information report (FIR) against Deshmukh and “other unknowns” under Article 7 (unlawful gratification by an official in an official act) of the PCA and section 120B (criminal association) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The state approached the HC on April 30 and Deshmukh on May 3 against the FIR.
For the state, senior attorney Rafique Dada and state attorney Akshay Shinde said the CBI violated the HC warrant by “cutting and pasting” a para straight out of Singh’s PIL and relying on the pleadings of a petition by lawyer Ghanshyam Upadhyay for an investigation against Deshmukh which was never warranted.
India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for CBI has concluded his submission to seek the dismissal of the state’s petition. He, along with lawyer Subhash Jha for Upadhaya, said that there is a warrant given by the HC and the state cannot now allow such a warrant to be rejected.
The state said that despite the shutdown of the Shukla report, as the attorney general mentioned before the chief justice bench, the state investigated how it “fled” from the CBI and wanted to “mutilate” “his investigation.
Mehta said the difference is that the state examines the “leak” while the CBI, “its contents.”
In May, the CBI before the HC said it would not act on letters it sent to the state requesting documents, including a wiretapping report by (Intelligence) Commissioner Rashmi Shukla, alleging undue political interference in assignments and transfers of officers. He continued his presentation for the duration of the hearing of the State’s request until the delivery of the judgment.
In Deshmukh’s plea, senior lawyer Amit Desai, who represented him, said that prior sanction was essential under the provisions of the Corruption Prevention Act based on the details mentioned in the FIR itself. same and that consent was also required.
CBI attorney Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi said that Deshmukh’s conduct was not part of his official duties as he allegedly asked Waze to collect money from restaurants and bars and that no prior state sanction was required and no consent required for the CBI. investigation and no sanction was required.
The HC said the judgments would be uploaded in the evening.
Deshmukh’s attorney, Desai, said since the point of law raised by the rejection had to be put on hold to allow the appeal to the Supreme Court, the CBI through Solicitor General Mehta objected. saying that no question of law was involved and that no interim measures existed. HC also stated that no question of law was at issue and denied his request for a stay of termination.