No Proof In Allegations Against Mulayam, Akhilesh In Disproportionate Assets Case: CBI

In a relief to former Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh, the Central Bureau of Investigation has told the Supreme Court that allegations of disproportionate assets against them could not be substantiated and it had closed the preliminary enquiry in 2013 itself.

In an affidavit filed in the top court, CBI said that since “no prima facie evidence” of commission of cognisable offence against Mulayam and his two sons, Akhilesh and Prateek, was found, the preliminary enquiry was not converted into a criminal case.

The CBI said that after conducting further enquiry in a “fair, impartial and professional manner” in the matter, it had independently taken a decision to close the probe against them as per court’s directions in the 2012 verdict.

In its 21-page affidavit, the CBI said, “Thereafter in compliance of the directions of the court in the judgement dated Dec. 13, 2012, further enquiry was conducted in the said PE and it was found that the allegations against Respondent(s)..., for allegedly having acquired disproportionate assets to their known source of income could not be substantiated.”

The CBI said that the apex court in its 2012 verdict had passed various directions in the matter and allowed it to take independent action on the basis of the enquiry, without seeking any direction from any corner.

“Accordingly, the CBI after conducting further enquiry in a fair, impartial and professional manner in the matter, had independently taken a decision to close the enquiry against Respondent number 2, 3 and 5 (Mulayam, Akhilesh and Prateek) on Aug. 7, 2013, in view of the directions of the court in the said judgement,” the affidavit said.

CBI said that pursuant to the apex court verdict in 2007 on a plea by petitioner Vishwanath Chaturvedi, it had registered the preliminary enquiry on March 5, 2007, to look into the allegations of acquiring of disproportionate assets to the known source of income against the trio, Akhilesh’s wife Dimple Yadav, and other unknown persons.

“On careful examination of documents, statements of witnesses and the versions of the suspects during the course of further enquiry, sufficient evidence to support the allegations of possessions of disproportionate assets, jointly or individually, against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members could not be brought out,” it said.

It said that Central Vigilance Commission was told about the decision taken on October 8, 2013, along with reasons for difference in computation of disproportionate assets in the early findings of 2007.

The agency said that enquiry is not a criminal investigation and hence there was requirement for it to place the report before the jurisdictional court and even the apex court had not directed the agency to place before it or any other authority.

On April 12, the CBI had told the apex court that it had closed in 2013 an enquiry against Mulayam Singh Yadav and his son Akhilesh in the disproportionate assets case.

The top court had directed CBI to file its reply on a fresh plea by Chaturvedi seeking to know the status of probe in the assets case.

Yadav, who contested Lok Sabha polls from Mainpuri seat in Uttar Pradesh, alleged that the petition, filed on the poll eve, was politically motivated.

He had alleged that Chaturvedi was trying to rake up an old disproportionate assets case against him and his family to malign their image during the current general elections.

The Congress leader in 2005 had filed the Public Interest Litigation in the top court seeking a direction to the CBI to take appropriate action to prosecute the Yadavs for allegedly acquiring assets more than the known source of their income by misusing their power of authority.

The apex court in its verdict of March 1, 2007 had directed the CBI “to enquire into allegations” and find out as to as to whether the plea with regard to disproportionate assets of Samajwadi Party leaders was “correct or not”.

In 2012, the court had dismissed the review petitions of Yadav and his sons against its verdict and directed the CBI to go ahead with the probe against them in the disproportionate assets case.

It had allowed the review plea of Dimple and directed the CBI to drop the inquiry against her saying that she was not holding any public office.