![]() Thursday, Feb 19, 2004 |
| Karnataka | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Karnataka
By B.S. Ramesh
BANGALORE,
FEB. 18.
The CBI stand has stumped the State, which had a few months ago transferred all the cases pertaining to the stamp paper racket to it.
Incidentally, it was the Upparpet police in Bangalore that detected the sale of fake stamp paper in large numbers in 2000.
However, the first case on the racket was registered by the City Market police in 1997.
Abdul Karim Telgi, the prime accused in the case, was arrested by the Bangalore city police from Ajmer in 2002.
The demand for a CBI inquiry into the racket was there ever since Telgi was caught.
The State Government constituted a special team called the Stamp Investigation Team (STAMPIT) headed by the Additional Director-General of Police, R. Srikumar, to investigate the racket. The team has already filed several chargesheets and examined over 800 witnesses.
Even as STAMPIT was investigating the cases, Telgi's vast network in other States was unearthed.
The arrest of police officials in Maharashtra, an MLA in Hyderabad, and related developments in other States fuelled the demand for a CBI probe.
However, it was only a year ago that this demand gained momentum.
The Opposition parties sought a CBI probe on the grounds that the then Minister for Tourism and Haj, Roshan Baig, and his brother Rehan Baig, were involved.
A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to transfer all stamp paper cases to the CBI.
It was when other States, including Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, decided to hand over the stamp paper case to the CBI that Karnataka also decided to do so.
Though the case has been handed over to the CBI, it is yet to formally take over.
As of now, STAMPIT has been investigating 15 cases pertaining to the racket. It is in the process of preparing a report to the CBI on the status of investigation and other aspects.
When the case came up for hearing in the Supreme Court on January 30, 2004, the CBI stunned the State officials when it submitted that only cases having inter-State and national ramifications be referred to it.
The Supreme Court was hearing the petition (WP-C 522 of 2003 ) of Arun Agarwal and the Union of India when the CBI made this submission.
It said the agency had only limited resources and manpower and, hence, it requested for transfer of only some cases to it.
The CBI further stated that since the cases were already being investigated by police/special teams of various States, these agencies could be directed to cooperate with the CBI.
Besides, these agencies should be directed to give the CBI complete access to all the material collected by them during the investigation.
Incidentally, the CBI has also sought a direction from the court on the provisions of Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of Telgi.
This provision, it says, will hamper the CBI from investigating Telgi's role in cases transferred from other States to it.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|