The Economic Times
English EditionEnglish Editionहिन्दी
| E-Paper
Search
+

    Mulayam Singh Yadav's affidavit may have relied on forged papers

    Synopsis

    After a probe into the forged status reports, CBI had filed a final report in the special court at Patiala House, New Delhi, on December 28, 2012.

    Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav
    (This story originally appeared in on Jun 14, 2019)
    NEW DELHI: Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav appears to have relied on forged CBI probe status reports to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court seeking dismissal of a fresh attempt to reactivate investigations into alleged disproportionate assets accumulated by him and his family members.

    On March 25, a bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi had sought responses from CBI and Yadav on an application filed by Congress's Vishwanath Chaturvedi, who had filed a fresh application in his 2007 PIL requesting the court to find out what the agency had done in last 12 years in its probe into alleged disproportionate assets of Mulayam Singh Yadav and his two sons-former UP CM Akhilesh Yadav and Prateek Yadav.

    In his petition, Mulayam Singh Yadav accused Chaturvedi of bringing political vendetta into the court by suppressing the clean chit given to him by CBI in its two status reports-of July 30, 2007 and of August 20, 2007- as well as an analysis of status report ostensibly prepared on February 2, 2009 by then CBI-DIG Tilotama Varma.

    Yadav in his affidavit said, "Petitioner has chosen and filed the present application just at the time and eve of 2019 general elections with mala fide reasons without disclosing the status reports of July 30, 2007 and August 20, 2007. The petitioner has filed and relied upon only the report dated October 26, 2007 without submitting before the court the analysis of the status reports (by Varma) on February 2, 2009."

    CBI had disowned the "status reports" of 2007 as well "analysis" of the two reports. The agency termed them forgeries and filed an FIR to investigate who were responsible for generating the forged status reports and the "fake" analysis report of February 2, 2009 whose publication had generated sensation.

    After a probe into the forged status reports, CBI had filed a final report in the special court at Patiala House, New Delhi, on December 28, 2012. In the final report, CBI said, "Investigations have thus established that alleged note of February 2, 2009 was not at all prepared by Tilotama Varma. From the noting in the file, it has been established that no status report dated July 30, 2007 and August 20, 2007 were filed by the said CBI branch. Even the branch officials including the investigating officer, superintendent of police and DIG in their statements have denied having prepared any such status report."

    "It may be mentioned that the two alleged status reports of July 30 and August 20 contain several paragraphs lifted from the undated status report of CBI, which was kept in the sealed cover for the perusal of the Supreme Court," CBI said.

    On a PIL filed by Congress leader Vishwanath Chaturvedi, the SC had on March 1, 2007 directed the CBI to inquire into allegations relating to Yadavs.
    (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)

    Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.

    3 Comments on this Story

    Dhivya Gad Pulcorner624 days ago
    Someone was saying his real name is Mulla Yam. Every thing seem to be incorrect in his afidavit
    ravi_40624 days ago
    Mulla madarchd mulayam shall be sent to tihar jail immediately..
    Devidas Telakat624 days ago
    What doe4s this mean? If portions of what IS GIVEN IN A SEALED COVER TO THE SUPREME COURT for its perusal can be lifted selectively, the court staff are privy to fraud and the court cannot be trusted. Serious flaws call for harsh measures.Scrap the court and replace it with another more professional one.The judges assembled there are dishing out per incuriam decisions with huge cut and pastes from foreign judgments and NO reasoning for its conclusions from the provisions of the Constitution of India and valid laws under it.They have been doing it from 1950 and the Congress found the Court good dry cleaners.The tragedy is that details of crimes by judges listed in jail867judges have remained so far without attention or action though judges have NO IMMUNITY from prosecution for crimes.A beginning can be made with that list.
    The Economic Times