In another high-profile case of former cabinet minister Sadhusingh Dharamsot’s alleged corruption, the state government has failed to get prosecution approval. A case was registered against Dharamsot by Punjab’s Vigilance Bureau (VB) in February last year. The court has issued a notice to the investigating officer (IO) to submit a reply on January 19.
Earlier in October, a court had pointed out that the Punjab government had failed to grant permission to the prosecution to prosecute Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Sanjay Popli even after an FIR was registered two years ago in the corruption case.
In its order on December 5, the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Dr Ajit Atri noted that the Punjab government’s Additional Public Prosecutor had said that Dharamsot had not received approval to prosecute the case even though the investigation agency was in the process. To obtain necessary approvals.
“Issue a notice to the IO for December 19 to inform the court what steps have been taken to obtain approval for prosecution and what may be the tentative time for obtaining approval for prosecution,” the order said.
The court issued this notice rejecting Dharamsot’s application to operate his bank account.
Counsel for the accused had submitted that he had applied for permission to operate his bank account at Nava branch of HDFC Bank, Punjab. It was argued that in the last elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly in 2022, Dharamsot contested from the Nava constituency on a Congress ticket and as per law a new bank account in his name at the Nava branch of HDFC Bank on January 27 opened In 2023, the details of expenses incurred while contesting elections can be accounted and submitted to the election authorities. The former minister had claimed that the account was opened for election purposes only by following the instructions and instructions of the Election Commission of India.
The petition further stated that with the new state government in Punjab, the accused was falsely implicated and the said bank account was blocked by the investigating agency during the investigation.
“The bank account has no relation and association with the crime and charges leveled against the petitioner/accused,” it said.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the state claimed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also registered a case in the current case and the accused does not want to operate his bank account for further investigation.
VB considered the checks between March 1, 2016 and March 31, 2022 to calculate the income and expenditure of Dharamsot and his family members. During that period, the petitioner was found to have spent an additional amount of Rs. 73 million 841.14 (Rs. 7.02 crores), which is 588 percent more than the income earned by him. He committed an offense under Section 13(1)(b) including Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as a civil servant.
Based on the investigation conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the former minister was found to have earned disproportionate assets worth Rs. It has also been found that with the help of his son Gurpreet Singh and Harpreet Singh, he deposited an amount of Rs. 6,34,22,527.89 (Rs 6.34 Crores) for the offense under PMLA.
Various movable and immovable properties of Dharamsot have been attached to the crime proceedings through an order dated March 13. An amount of Rs.3,74,260.52 (Rs. 3.74 lakhs) with future interest to be deposited in the HDFC Bank account was provisionally attached.
After hearing all the parties, the court observed: “It is not in dispute that the challan has already been filed and is pending. It has also come on record that the ED has also taken up the matter on the basis of the FIR registered by the Vigilance Bureau and filed a complaint which is still is under consideration.”
The petitioner had submitted an application for the operation of the account for the election, which has expired.
Dismissing the application, the court gave this order, ‘It appears that this account contains the amount of the crime and the amount pending to settle the case.
Considering this and all the allegations in the file, the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to operate the account.”