statesman news service
KOLKATA, 12 JUNE: In view of a spate of complaints of fraud being lodged with several agencies against the Saradha group, the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench of Mr Justice Asim Banerjee and Mr Justice Mrinalkanti Choudhuri today observed since no one could be stopped from lodging complaints, an amalgamated authority should receive such allegations.
The court was hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a CBI probe into the Saradha chit fund scam.
Earlier, submitting in the matter, Mr Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya submitted that while opposing a CBI probe into the scam, the government pleader, Ashok Banerjee, appeared to be echoing the affidavit of the accused, Saradha group chairman, Sudipto Sen, who had preferred a probe by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the state to a CBI inquiry.
“Some political activists are seeking to secure the property of the Saradha group, but they are not admitting that the state’s investigation in the matter had failed,” Mr Bhattacharya submitted.
It was submitted that the state police hadn’t handed over Sen to a team of the Maharashtra police which had come to the city to take him with them for an investigation. The job would have been done in a coordinated way had a Central probe team been looking into the matter.
“The amicus curiae, Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, had overlooked the fact that there is no case diary in this matter,” Mr Subrata Mukhopadhaya submitted seeking a CBI probe. The matter is similar to the case where the court had ordered a CBI probe after no case diary had been filed in respect of the rape and murder of an inmate of a woman’s home, it was further submitted.
“The contention that the charges against the state investigating agency is without documentary evidence is baseless” Mr Mukhopdhaya contended.
“Sen’s letter to the CBI is proof enough,” it was further submitted.
“The state government is duty-bound to provide manpower and other assistance to the CBI in the interest of investigation just as it did in the Rizwanur, Nandigram and Netai cases,”Mr Mukhopadhaya submitted.
The hearing of the case was concluded during the day and the judgment would be passed later.