Two investigations
If a central agency probes a sitting minister based on allegations, what would that hold out for the stability of the state government: this was the question at the heart of Deshmukh’s plea.
He sought an immediate stay on the order stating that a preliminary inquiry by the CBI would lead to irreparable loss to his reputation.
He also maintained that the HC order ignored that there was no substantial evidence in the allegations made by Singh. Pointing out that the CBI is a Central government agency, he argued that if the court accepted statements without substantive evidence then this could pave the way to destabilise state governments in future.
The Maharashtra government too filed a petition arguing that the high court bypassed the investigation agencies in the state and showed no confidence in the Mumbai Police, which affected their morale. Both the petitions were rejected by the Apex court on April 8.
CBI conducted a preliminary enquiry and registered a First Information Report on April 21 against Deshmukh and others for “attempting to obtain undue advantage for improper and dishonest performance of duty.” The agency also carried out searches at Deshmukh’s residence in Mumbai and Nagpur.
On May 3, Deshmukh moved the Bombay HC to quash the CBI’S FIR contending that it was registered without the consent of the state government, as mandated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and without prior approval as required under section 17C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The HC dismissed the petition on July 22.
Deshmukh’s lawyer Kamlesh Ghumre refused to comment on the HC order.
And while there has been no further movement on the CBI probe since then, another investigation was initiated against Deshmukh.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 11 registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against the NCP leader to probe the money laundering aspects of the case.
ED officials recorded statements of hoteliers and orchestra bar owners from Mumbai. They even recorded former assistant inspector Sachin Vaze’s statements twice in May.
On June 26, the agency arrested Deshmukh’s personal secretary Sanjeev Palande and personal assistant Kundan Shinde, claiming that they had accepted money collected by Vaze from some bar owners. The two were booked under various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Deshmukh moved the Supreme Court on July 5 questioning