Anil Deshmukh Case : Also Probe Committee Which Reinstated Sachin Waze, Bombay High Court To CBI

The bench said that the then' head of administration' cannot be 'let off,' neither can he 'plead innocence' that some executive told him to reinstate Waze, and he was helpless. Because it was his duty to prevent wrongdoings.

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar made the observations while hearing former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh's petition seeking quashing of the FIR against him for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120B (conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. Specifically for 'atempt to obtain undue advantage for the improper and dishonest performance of public duty.'

In an earlier hearing, the Maharashtra Government had informed the court that a three-member committee led by then Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh had reinstated Sachin Waze and that Waze was directly reporting to him.

Waze is currently in the National Investigation Agency's custody and is the prime accused in the Ambani Terror Scare Case and Mansukh Hiran murder.

"If Waze was so dangerous, then, subject to what Mr. Lekhi (CBI) has to say, the Committee that reinstated him should be added as an accused in this case. We are not naming ABCD," the bench said when Amit Desai concluded his arguments for Deshmukh.

Even as ASG Aman Lekhi began giving an outline of his arguments, the court said that if "true and practical meaning" is to be given to the HC's order directing the preliminary enquiry, "everyone's role has to be investigated, not just one.."

"…Whoever is the head of the executive or the administration, who is occupying the main post at the relevant time cannot plead innocence, that some executive told and I was helpless. It was equally the duty of that officer, who was holding the main post, to prevent it at the relevant time." the court said.

Lekhi said he was not privy to the complete details of the investigation, but he inquired with the officer and was told that everyone would be investigated.

Reiterating their earlier query, the court said that it expects the CBI to inform them who are the conspirators, the "unknown others" in the FIR.

DESHMUKH NOT CHARGED WITH EXTORTION

On Wednesday, Desai said that "We live in a society with the presumption of dishonesty. Therefore an allegation becomes enough."

Desai said that while at several places in the affidavit, the CBI referred to extortion, the FIR doesn't include any section of extortion, and it's only under Section 7 of the PC Act r/w 120B fo IPC.

He said there would be a presumption that CBI applied its mind during the enquiry and did not find evidence of extortion, and therefore it's not there in the FIR. He said the CBI has said that Deshmukh 'attempted' to obtain undue advantage, but they have nowhere mentioned particulars of the act.

"You cannot take away my right to life and liberty on the basis of this paper. And then say that just because the ex-CP made these allegations to the Chief Minister, it should be assumed to be true. I am not saying give me a certificate of honesty, but protect my rights. I made a statement saying I am not averse to the PE, and the court took note of it. But the FIR has to disclose an offence," Desai said.

"I lost my job, then there are raids. Basically, not a single sentence in the affidavit that he has taken any money, only an alleged "attempt."

Desai said that Deshmukh resigned on moral grounds, but CBI has nothing to show he took even a rupee. "It is reeking of vengeance against me, because he (ParamBirSingh) was transferred after my press statement."

Desai submitted that Deshmukh never had any 'extortion from bar owners' conversation with Waze, and the FIR is registered for extraneous purposes.

ALLEGATIONS ARE ENOUGH

Lekhi merely outlined his arguments on Wednesday. He said that the petition was misconceived and devoid of merit, and therefore the petition should be dismissed.

He argued that Deshmukh's petition seeks to undo the High Court's order, directing the preliminary inquiry, and contest what has already been affirmed.

"We will rely on the fact that on the complaint of Dr Patil, there was no action taken by the State. We will show in terms of 17A (requirement of sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act) that the court having ordered the inquiry, and the order not having been overturned, the consequence of the inquiry should be upheld."

He said that there is a fundamental flaw in Desai's arguments that there isn't enough in the FIR as they were only at the stage of investigation and were not required to have facts satisfactory for a conviction.

"With all due respect, we dont need anything more than allegations at this stage. The reluctance of the investigating agency to say anything conclusively, it shows fairness and openness to examine the issue in totality."