CBI on Thursday claimed before Delhi High Court that allegations against Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh in the disproportionate assets case are “very serious” as a huge amount of money is involved and the state government has shown “over anxiety” in protecting him.
The agency told Justice Vipin Sanghi that CBI has the jurisdiction to register and investigate the case in Delhi as the disproportionate assets were allegedly acquired by the Congress leader from the income generated here when he was a Union minister during UPA regime.
“The allegations against him (Singh) are exclusive of his tenure in Delhi,” Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P S Patwalia said, adding, “Allegations are very serious. Crores of rupees are involved in this. Money have been shifted from one bank account to other accounts”.
“The state government is not a petitioner here. Whatever is argued by the state (government) is not liable to be considered at all. It infact shows the over anxiety on the part of the state (government),” he said, adding, “The state is going two steps ahead to protect the petitioner (Singh)”.
Patwalia also alleged that Singh's son had purchased a farm house here in August 2011 for Rs 1.20 crore and Singh had given Rs 90 lakh for this.
"This is nothing but a property acquired by the disproportionate assets of Virbhadra Singh. It (farm house) is situated in Delhi. A number of bank accounts are in Delhi. The income is generated in Delhi as he was posted here. CBI has the jurisdiction to investigate the matter here," he said. The court has now fixed the matter for further arguments on December 15.
Earlier, Singh's counsel had said in the high court that CBI cannot on its own decide to probe offences outside Delhi without the consent of the concerned state government.
His counsel had contended that in this case, the alleged offence was committed in Himachal Pradesh as disproportionate assets were located there and hence, the police of that state should have been probing it. Singh had earlier claimed that CBI's FIR was "premature" as it was based on the proceedings of Income Tax department, which were still pending. CBI had told the court that its probe in the DA case was “complete” and it wanted to file a charge sheet in the matter.