Maharashtra’s former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh on Tuesday skipped the summons once again to appear personally before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an alleged money laundering for the third time, after accusing the ED of “circumventing” the process of law and asking the investigating agency to await the outcome of the proceedings of the court in the coming few days.
“... a series of events have given rise to bonafide apprehension in my mind that that the neither procedure of law is being followed nor any objective, impartial or transparent investigations are being carried out. I also apprehend the invasion of my liberty by circumventing the process of law,” Deshmukh stated in a letter written to the ED on Monday.
“In such compelling circumstances therefore, I am approaching the Hon’ble court for safeguarding and protecting my fundamental rights and to also ensure that the investigations are above board and within the ambit of the procedure established under law. I am expecting the listing and hearing of my petition in the coming few days,” Deshmukh stated, as he urged the ED to await the outcome of the court proceedings in the coming few days.
Deshmukh, who had earlier failed to make personal appearances before the ED on July 26 and 29 earlier but had sent his lawyers to the investigating agency’s office, said that he had “utmost respect” for all institutions, including the ED. “ I am only taking recourse to my legal remedies in view of the peculiarities of the circumstances and I hope you will appreciate that as a citizen of India, I have every right to avail of my constitutional remedies,” the state’s former Home Minister told the ED.
Among other things, Deshmukh told the ED that it had not furnished or supplied him a copy of the the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against him in the alleged money laundering case registered against him and the list of documents required by the agency.
Contesting the statement made in a letter written by the ED summoning him for questioning on July 5 that he had adopted “a dilatory tactic or “disregarded the summons” or “failed to appear” before it, Deshmukh said the agency’s contention was not only “misconceived” but also reflected its “prejudicial bent of mind”. He went onto add that had “diligently and faithfully” complied with the summons earlier and “on the contrary, I have not heard anything concrete” from the ED.
Monday was the third occasion when Deshmukh failed to appear personally before the ED.
In his earlier letter, Deshmukh had 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. However, the ED rejected his request.
In his earlier letter dated June 29, Deshmukh had stated 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 June 29, Deshmukh had 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 had made it clear to the ED: “I am sanguine to expose falsity, hollowness and lack of substance in the allegations levelled against me”.
“...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,” he had stated.
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.
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’.
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.