Maharashtra’s former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh on Tuesday not only declined to appear physically before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the apprehension that he might contract Covid-19, but he also told the ED categorically that it would not be possible for him to submit the documents sought from him by the agency unless it furnished him a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against him in the alleged money laundering case registered against him.
Skipping the physical appearance before the central investigating agency for the second time in four days, Deshmukh sent his lawyer Inderpal B Singh to the ED headquarters in compliance with the summons issued to him to appear before it at 11 am on Tuesday.
“I am a septuagenarian, about 72 years of age, SIK suffering from various comorbidities including hypertension and cardiac problems etc. I have already exposed my person to some extent on June 25 in my long interaction with you spanning over several hours during the course of the search and recording my statement. Thus, it may not be prudent or desirable to appear in person today and I am sending my authorised representative,” Deshmukh stated in his letter addressed to ED’s Mumbai-based Assistant Director Tassine Sultan.
Deshmukh, however, told the ED that he was prepared to appear before the ED through “any audio-visual” mode at the convenient time as desired by its officials.
Deshmukh -- whom his another lawyer Jayant Patil had represented before the ED when the agency issued him the first summons to appear before it on June 26 -- stated in his letter handed over to the ED through his lawyer Singh that he found it “rather surprising” that the ED had not responded to his request for supply of a copy of ECIR registered to him.
The former State Home Minister stated in his letter that the allegations and subsequent proceedings against him were “actuated with malice”, that he had co-operated fully with the agency when it carried out searches on his residences on June 25 when it recorded his statement under section 80 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Alluding to the summons issued to him by the ED to appear before it on Tuesday, Deshmukh told the agency that he was lawyer to appear before it, but declined to submit the documents demanded by the agency, by saying that “it would not be possible for him” to furnish the same (documents) unless I am furnished or supplied a copy of the ECIR or any list of documents. “Unless the said ECIR is perused by me, it will not be possible to furnish the documents sought for in connection therewith”.
Maintaining that he was a “law-abiding” citizen and would not evade or avoid the process of law at any point of time, Deshmukh made it clear to the ED: “I am sanguine to expose falsity, hollowness and lack of substance in the allegations levelled against me”.
Among other things, Deshmukh alleged in his letter that despite his having complied with the summons issued by the ED to him on June 25 to appear before it on the following day, It had unleashed an “adverse” propaganda against him in social and print media platforms..
“...your summons do not clarify the particular purpose of my personal appearance. I have learnt from the media persons that you arrested two persons who were associated with me. Therefore, personal appearance on personal appearance without even supplying me a copy of ECIR or documents may strengthen my assertion that there some kind of malice being nursed against me”.
It may be recalled that on June 25, the ED had raided four locations of the State’s former Home Minister, including his Nagpur and Mumbai residences, in connection with the alleged money laundering case filed against him. The Ed had earlier carried out searches at 10 locations of Deshmukh in various cities of the state on April 24. At that time, he had been detained and questioned for 10-long hours.
Subsequently on the night of June 25, the ED had arrested Deshmukh’s two aides —his former personal secretary Sanjeev Palande and personal assistant Kundan Shinde in connection with the alleged money laundering case registered against the former minister. A day later, Palande and Shinde were remanded to ED’s custody till July 1.
Having established a trail for Rs 4 crore allegedly paid by the 10 bar owners in Mumbai over a period of three months, the ED had conducted raids on the three residences and one property of Deshmukh on June 25.
Among other things, the ED had told the court on June 26 that Rs. 40 lakh was paid by 60 bar owners to the now dismissed and incarcerated Assistant Police Inspector (API) Sachin Waze in December last year. The bar owners have told the ED that amount was paid for ‘smooth functioning’ of their establishments and also as ‘good luck money’.
The ED told the court that during its investigations so far, it had come to light 11 companies were controlled by Deshmukh’s family members and another set of 13 companies run by close associates of Deshmukh were controlled by his family members.
The ED also told the court that while CBI was investigating corruption charges against the former Minister, it was probing the money trail and proceeds of crime were required to be linked.
Deshmukh, it may be recalled, had resigned from his post as the State Home Minister on April 5, within hours after the Bombay High Court ordered a “Preliminary Enquiry” (PE) by the CBI into the serious charges of corruption made against him by Mumbai’s former Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh.
It may be recalled that on March 20, the former commissioner of police had alleged that State Home Minister Deshmukh had asked now arrested and dismissed police officer Sachin Vaze to “collect” a staggering Rs 100 crore per month from bars, restaurants and other sources.
Deshmukh is being investigated separately by the CBI in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered by it on April 24 section 7 of the amended Prevention of Corruption of Corruption Act and section 120-b (conspiracy) of IPC for an “attempt to obtain undue advantage for important and dishonest performance of the public duty”.
Having prima facie found “cognisance offences” of corruption and conspiracy against him during a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) conducted by it into the allegations made against him by Mumbai’s former Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh, the CBI on April 21 registered a regular case against him and other unknown people.
