Hearing in Amritsar Improvement Trust ‘scam’ adjourned till May 19

MOHALI: During the resumed hearing in the case pertaining to Amritsar Improvement Trust ‘scam’ on Wednesday, former deputy speaker Bir Devinder Singh submitted before the court that he was the whistleblower in the case.

The hearing, however, has been adjourned till May 19.

The submission made by Bir Devinder’s counsel before the court stated, “It was on the basis of a question raised by me that the scam was unearthed. My consciousness pricked me and I rose above the party lines, thus putting my political career at stake.”

The court was hearing arguments on issue whether Bir Devinder had a locus standi to object to the cancellation of report filed by the Punjab vigilance bureau.

Bir Devinder had raised the issue in February 2006 and a special committee was constituted to look into the allegations that exemption was granted for exchange of money.

His counsel submitted that with the change of command (government), the vigilance bureau was going all out to save the accused.

Countering the arguments, Punjab prosecution and litigation director Vijay Singla, who argued case on behalf of vigilance, said, “The cancellation report was filed in 2016 when SAD was in power. It is misleading to say that change of command led to filing of the cancellation.”

OBJECTION RAISED

Bir Devinder’s counsel raised objection to the appearance of the prosecution director as the public prosecutor to argue in the case.

The counsel pointed out that as per the provisions, a public prosecutor was in-charge of the case. “Then how can the director (prosecution) appear for arguments?” he asked.

“I have been associated with the case since its beginning and am not debarred from appearing before the court even after becoming deputy director prosecution,” was the sharp reply of Vijay Singla.

The vigilance bureau had in September 2008 registered a first information report (FIR) under Sections 420 (cheating), 467/468 (forgery), 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused.

The challan, filed in February 2009, had found all 18 accused involved in the alleged scam that led to a loss of ₹60 crore to the state exchequer. However, the charges were never framed against them.

In its second round of investigation — conducted following an order of the Punjab and Haryana high court — the VB had found that there was “no undue favour granted to any developer or misuse of power”, while seeking cancellation of the first information report against the accused.

› It was on the basis of a question raised by me that the scam was unearthed. My consciousness pricked me and I rose above the party lines, thus putting my political career at stake. BIR DEVINDER SINGH, former deputy speaker