ये ‘सीबीआई प्रमाड़ित ईमानदार’ क्या होता है नेताजी?
सौदेबाज मुलायम का कुनबा 26 अक्टूबर 2007 से वाण्टेड है, क़ानूनी रूप में सीबीआई की प्राथमिक रिपोर्ट के बाद 40 दिनों में एफआईआर हो जानी चाहिए थी. चूँकि सीबीआई सत्ता चलाने का टूल बन चुकी है, सो सीबीआई कोर्ट पहुँच गई एफआईआर की परमीशन मांगने। उस वक्त मुलायम के पास 39 सांसदों की ताकत थी। खुली लूट की आजादी में रोड़ा बन रहे वामपंथियों से मनमोहन का गिरोह छुटकारा चाहता था और अपने आकाओं के इशारे पर हरहाल में न्यूक्लियर डील कराने पर आमादा था।
इसी बीच नवम्बर 07 में वामदलों ने सरकार को चेतावनी देकर कहा कि यदि सरकार ने डील की तो समर्थन वापस ले लूंगा। मनमोहन गिरोह के मैनेजरों को मुलायम के डीए केस पर निगाह लग गयी। यहीं से शुरू हुआ ब्लैकमेलिंग का सिलसिला जो कि 2014 तक जारी रहा। न्यूक्लियर डील हो जाने के बाद मेरे निजी उत्पीड़न का दौर शुरू हुआ। पैसे के आफर दिए गए, सुरक्षा छीन ली गई, जान से मारने की धमकी दी गई। ये सारे दांव कोर्ट में सीबीआई का केस वापसी का हलफनामा दायर कराने के लिए आजमाए गए। सन 2009 के लोकसभा चुनावों में सपा से गठबन्धन कर चुनाव लड़ने का ख़्वाब देखने वाले मनमोहन गिरोह को उस वक्त हताशा हुई जब कोर्ट में केस वापसी का मैंने विरोध किया।
उसी दौरान सीबीआई की डीआईजी के फर्जी हस्ताक्षर वाली रिपोर्ट मीडिया में हेडलाइन बनाकर चलाकर कोर्ट को दबाव में लेने का असफ़ल प्रयास किया गया लेकिन कोई दाव काम नहीं आया और 10 फरवरी 20009 को कोर्ट ने फ़ैसला रिजर्व कर लिया। 2009 के चुनावों से पहले सपा ने गठबंधन तोड़ने का एलान कर दिया। 2009 के लोकसभा चुनावो में उप्र में स्थानीय कारणों से कांग्रेस को 21 सीटों पर सफलता मिली। अब मेरे उत्पीड़न की धार तेज हो चुकी थी। संसद में कट मोशन, जेपीसी, राष्ट्रपति चुनाव सहित जब कोई बड़ा सवाल हुआ, फ़ौरन कोर्ट में केस लिस्ट हुआ और सरकार व मुलायम के वकील एक स्वर में मेरे ऊपर पिल पड़ते थे। एक बार तो एटार्नी जनरल वाहनवती से कोर्ट को पूछना पड़ा कि आप मुलायम के वकील हो या केंद्र सरकार के।
2014 में सत्ता परिवर्तन हुआ। मोदी जी प्रधानमंत्री बने। मुलायम की बांछे खिल गई क्योंकि असल में मुलायम की धोती के नीचे खाकी है। 1977 में जनता पार्टी में संघ के साथ काम कर चुके हैं। 1989 और 2003 में भाजपा के समर्थन से मुख्यमंत्री रह चुके हैं। अब मोदी वंदना जेल जाने से बचने के लिए कर रहे हैं। यदि मुलायम में हिम्मत है तो मोदी के ख़िलाफ़ एक लफ्ज बोलकर दिखाएं। मुलायम को मालूम है कि कोर्ट ने एफआईआर किये जाने के लिए रोक नहीं लगाई है। यदि मोदी का मूड बिगड़ा तो चौटाला के बगल वाली बैरक में पहुंच जाएंगे मुलायम।
मुलायम को यह भी मालूम है कि जब कोर्ट के निर्देश पर जाँच हो रही है तो कोर्ट ही जेल भेजेगी या केस खत्म करेगी। समर्थन की कीमत वसूल चुके मुलायम मीडिया से भी वसूली कर रहे हैं। भारतीय मीडिया तीन बार केस क्लोज कर चुकी है। एकतरफा बयानों के आधार पर केस का क्लोजर रिपोर्ट चलाने वाली मीडिया को भी मालूम है कि इस प्रकरण में 3 पक्षकार हैं। मुलायम का कुनबा, कोर्ट और याचिका कर्ता, लेकिन दो पक्ष फायदे का सौदा नहीं है। मुलायम के पास सत्ता है, देने के लिए बहुत कुछ है, सो जब मन किया क्लोजर कर दिया। वैसे भी मीडिया के बारे में आम राय बन गई है कि यह सत्ता की चेरी है, भाट वंदना में माहिर है, फील्ड में खपने वाले पत्रकार लाचारी और बेचारगी की स्थिति में हैं।
The certified copy of supreme court on mulayam Singh’s DA case 15/09/2015 and this is the the last affidavit filed by cbi in supreme court on 30/03/2009.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELETE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION ( C ) NO. 633 OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF:
Vishwanath Chaturvedi Petitioner
Union of India & Ors. Respondents
Affidavit on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation
I, S.R. Majumdar, aged about 57 years, son of Shri B.B. Majumdar, working as Supdt. Pf Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Unit-IV, 8th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, do hereby state on oath, affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am Supervisory Officer in the enquiry in the present case and I am conversant with and aware of the facts of the case as derived from the records, which I believe to be true, and am competent to depose this Affidavit.
2. It is respectfully submitted that this affidavit is being filed on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to place on record before this
Hon’ble Court certain vital facts and in order to allay misgiving / erroneous impressions, in certain quarters, and to highlight that CBI has proceeded in this matter with utmost dedication and integrity as warranted and expected in terms of the judgement of this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid matter.
3. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court had issued certain directions to CBI in a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 633/2005 and in particular craves leave to highlight Paras 34, 37 and 42 of the Judgement of this Hon’ble Court reported in (2007) 4 SCC 380. These paras road as follows:
“…………We, therefore, direct the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the assets of all the respondents and after scrutinizing if a case is made out then to take further action in the matter”.
“The ultimate test, in our view, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent of a person with political difference raises an allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, we mould the prayer in the writ petition and direct the CBI to enquire into alleged acquisition of wealth by respondent Nos. 2-5 and find out as to whether the allegations made by the petitioner in regard to disproportionate assets to the known source of income of respondent Nos. 2-5 is correct or not and submit a report to the Union of India and on receipt of such report, the Union of India may take further steps depending upon the outcome of the preliminary enquiry into the assets of respondent Nos. 2-5”.
“The Registry is directed to send in sealed cover the documents market as ‘A’ to ‘H’ and all the copies of the sale deeds and other statements etc. filed by the parties to the CBI. The CBI may take the
preliminary enquiry, CBI had received documents sent by this Hon’ble Court referred to in Para 42 of the said Judgement.
5. It is respectfully submitted that after careful scrutiny of the documents received from this Hon’ble Court, CBI issued requisitions to Banks where accounts of the respondents no. 2 to 5 were maintained, to Sub Registrar office within whose jurisdiction the immovable properties which were subject matter of the enquiry were situated, the Income Tax Department and also to the Chartered
Accountant of respondents no. 2 to 5 and other concerned authorities.
6. It is respectfully submitted that the required documents as sought for from the Banks, Income Tax Department and the Sub Registrar office and other authorities were obtained. CBI faced non-cooperation in collecting documents from office of the Chartered Accountants of respondents no. 2 to 5.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the immovable properties which were subject matter of the enquiry were sought to be evaluated through the Valuation Cell of Income Tax Department and even through the CBI wanted respondents 2 and 3 to be present either in person or through their authorized representative and had given notice regarding the date and time if the evaluation, none from their side were present on two occasions. Therefore, the evaluation work could not be undertaken. The other issues which were required to be examined have been mentioned in the Status Report.
8. It is respectfully submitted that a Preliminary Enquiry Report was prepared with the available evidence pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court and the enquiry in this regard was concluded on 26th October, 2007 as per the procedure laid down in the CBI Crime Manual, 2005. A Status Report was prepared which can
be placed before this Hon’ble Court for perusal.
9. It is respectfully submitted that thereafter on conclusion of enquiry, an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 12 of 2007 was filed in the present matter on 26.10.2007 with the following prayer:-
(a) Pass an order/ direction permitting the applicant (CBI) to proceed further reference in the matter in accordance without any further reference to the Union Government or State Government: and
(b) Pass such other further orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.
10. It is respectfully submitted that the matter came up before this Hon’ble Court on 29.10.2007 and directions were given for issue of notice to all the parties for filling of replied within 4 weeks. No replies were filed. An interlocutory application being I.A. No. 13 of 2008 was filed on 12th March 2008, with the prayer for early hearing of I.A. No. 12 of 2007. The Hon’ble Registrar of Hon’ble Supreme Court granted another four weeks time to all the respondents for filing of counter affidavits. Since no reply was files, the matter came up for hearing on 7.5.2008 and the Hon’ble
Registrar directed that the matter be put up before the Hon’ble Bench.
11. It is respectfully submitted that after a lapse of nearly nine months from the date of conclusion of Preliminary Enquiry, representations were sent on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 5, starting from July 2008 (representation dated 14.7.2008, 18.9.2008 and 29.10.2008) by Smt. Dimple Yadav through Department of Personnel Training (DOP&T) for taking into account additional facts pertaining to clubbing of income of all the four respondents and to accept the determination of value of property, wealth and income as accepted by the competent authorities. The copies of the representations are on the file of CBI and the same can be produced before the Hon’ble Court, if so warranted.
12. It is respectfully submitted that there were divergent views within the CBI as to whether at this stage the representations so received could be looked into. Therefore, the matter was sought to be referred for legal opinion of a high ranking Law Officer of Government of India, through the nodal Ministry i.e., Department of Personal and Training (DOP&T). The matter was sent for the opinion of Law Officer on 7.11.2008. the legal opinion from the LD. Solicitor General of India dated 21.11.2008 was received through the Department of Personal and Training Government of India.
13. It is respectfully submitted that based on the legal opinion received through the Department of Personal and Training, Government of India, CBI files an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 14 of 2008 on 6.12.2008 for withdrawal of I.A. No. 12 of 2007.
14. It is respectfully submitted that CBI stands by its recommendations made in the Status Report of 26.10.2007 as informed to this Hon’ble Court vide IA no. 12/2007.
15. It is respectfully submitted that another representation from respondent Smt. Dimple Yadav was received through Department of Personal and Training on 27.1.2009 subsequent to the hearing which took place before the Hon’ble Court on 6.1.2009. This representation has also been kept on record.
16. It is respectfully submitted that some print media have published false/fabricated news related to this matter on 9.2.2009 just a day prior to the scheduled hearing in this matter before this Hon’ble Court on 10.2.2009. This false/fabricated news was also aired through some of the channels of the electronic media, which continued to be telecast till 13.2.2009. It was also mentioned before this Hon’ble Court that the respondents have copies of some documents of CBI, Specific reference being made to the news-item published in The Times of India dated 9.2.2009 related to this enquiry. It is respectfully submitted in this regards that the news report mentioned above is totally false and fabricated.
Complaints have already been lodged with the Press Council of India and the Secretary, Ministry if Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi in this regard. Copies of complaints lodged by CBI with the Press Council of India, the Secretary, Ministry if Information & Broadcasting, Government of India and letter dated 18.2.2009 sent to Department of Personal & Training for permitting filing of a criminal case a Civil Suit against The Times of India, Star News, CNN-IBN for slanderous, incorrect and false news report/telecast are appended herewith as Annexure A, B & C respectively.
17. It is respectfully submitted further that as the matter called for an in-depth investigation to find out as to who are responsible for the publication of false and fabricated reports related to the aforementioned enquiry with a view to malign and tarnish the reputation of the CBI as well as defaming the CBI officials to whom these non-existent reports dates 30.7.2007 and 20.8.2007 and so called 17-page internal review note dated 2.2.2009 were attributed, a Regular Case has been registered by CBI against unknown person u/s 120B r/w 465, 469/500 & 471 of IPC and the substantive offences thereof which is under investigation vide FIR copy enclosed as Annexure – D.
18. It is respectfully submitted that as far as the CBI is concerned, it has acted in utmost good faith in the present matter and is placing these facts only to highlight that CBI has strictly complied with the directions of this Hon’ble Court and still stands by its Status Report dated 26.10.2007.
I, S.R. Majumdar, Supdt. Of Police, ACU-V, 8th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, son of Shri B.B. Majumdar, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge based on the official records.
Verified and signed on this _______ day of March, 2009 at New Delhi.
जाने माने वकील विश्वनाथ चतुर्वेदी के एफबी वॉल से.