REPLYING TO the Punjab government that had earlier filed a reply to his application, ex-director-general of police (DGP) Sumedh Singh Saini filed a ‘rejoinder reply’ in the court of sessions judge Gurbir Singh Monday in Rs 1,144 crore alleged Ludhiana City Centre ‘scam’ in which chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh is one of the accused.
The state of Punjab representing the vigilance bureau, in it’s reply to Saini’s application challenging clean chit to Captain and other accused, had submitted on December 7 that he is ‘neither an informant, nor a complainant and has no locus standi to file present petition’. The state also questioned that why Saini hid ‘sensitive information’ related to the case for so many years.
In his rejoinder reply filed in the court Monday, Saini through his counsel Ramanpreet Singh Sandhu, has submitted that ‘investigating agency is apparently in collusion with the accused, violating process of law, stating incorrect facts and attempting to subvert process of law in a case entailing loss of Rs 1,500-3,000 crore to state exchequer’.
He has further submitted that state government is repeatedly changing stand on who was the actual complainant in the case.
Calling it an “extraordinary situation,” Saini submitted that one of the accused (Captain Amarinder Singh) is not only ‘the chief executive of the state’ but also ‘minister in-charge of vigilance and prosecution departments.’
‘The respondent state is arguing in favor of and in defence of the accused. An extraordinary situation has been created here,’ reads his reply.
“In their earlier reply on July 26 to ex-SSP Kanwarjit Sandhu’s application, the state said that it was then CM Captain Amarinder Singh who was complainant in the case or to the maximum the then director vigilance. But in reply filed to our application on December 7, the state claims that an individual or functionary of government cannot be called as an informant or complainant but it is state government. So the state itself is unclear on who is the actual complainant in the case,” said Sandhu.
The court has fixed next date of hearing on January 5 when arguments are expected on Saini’s application.
Saini has further questioned that how a ‘re-investigation’ in the case was carried out ‘without permission of court’ and that too ten years after challan was filed in the court.
Ex-DGP has also submitted that ‘false records’ were created and written in cancellation report to shield offenders from getting punishment and it has been supported with an ‘example’ of IAS officer BR Bajaj, who was then principal secretary, department of local bodies.
“In the cancellation report, vigilance has attached a statement of IAS officer BR Bajaj in which he purportedly says that his statement was never recorded under section 161 of CrPC when challan was prepared in 2007. This is completely false and his statement was recorded by an SP-rank officer. Bajaj even made changes in his own handwriting. We are in possession of that document. We do not know who is lying- Bajaj or vigilance bureau,” said Sandhu.
Ex-DGP has also submitted that the loss to exchequer in the case is at least Rs 1,500 to 3,000 crore.
“There is more than a needle of suspicion that investigators have colluded with accused who are both moneyed and influential- in a case where loss to state exchequer is 1,500-3,000 crore (apart from other offences),” reads Saini’s reply.
On November 28, Saini had filed application in court saying that he should be heard once before court accepts cancellation report and that he has ‘sensitive information’ as he was director vigilance from 2007-2012 which he wants to submit in sealed envelope.
