Expressing displeasure on the progress of investigations into the Adarsh Society scam, the Bombay high court on Tuesday slammed the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The bench raised concern over the fact that the CBI was taking too long to complete its probe, which began in January 2011. “Why have you not finished the investigation till now? It is a matter where many big names are concerned. You (CBI) must be careful, but at the same time you cannot let people question your credibility,” the court observed.
CBI counsel Mandar Goswami told the court that the agency was looking into benami transactions and since “there are 104 members, scrutiny of all the documents would take some time”.
The court has now asked the CBI to file an investigation status report and indicated that it would form a special investigation team if the CBI report is not satisfactory. “If it seems that you are inactive, a special team would have to be formed to probe the matter,” the court observed.
The HC also came down heavily on the ED for “serious lapse” and failure on its part to initiate a probe against members of scam-tainted Adarsh Society for money laundering, and has summoned the director of the ED to appear before it on March 12. “It is unfortunate that the ED has remained a mute spectator. There is a serious lapse on the agency’s part for not probing into the money laundering offence. The ED has not moved an inch. It reflects a sorry state of affairs,” observed the division bench of Justice P.B. Majmudar and Justice R.D. Dhanuka.
The court was hearing petitions filed by activists Simpreet Singh and Pravin Wategaonkar seeking its intervention to supervise the probe by the CBI and to ask the ED to initiate an inquiry into the money-laundering offences. The HC, which was expecting the ED to carry out a parallel investigation, was infuriated by the fact that the ED was waiting for the CBI to complete its probe.
“Why are you depending on the CBI? You are a separate agency and can conduct your probe independently,” the HC asked.