The Bankshall Court on Thursday once again directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to give clarification for taking more than two years in concluding the probe of the Saradha Scam that may also lead to “closure of investigation”. CBI has to file the reply by August 16.
This is the second time when the Court has directed the central investigating agency to reply for the delay. Earlier on July 22 the Bankshall court had ordered CBI to give a reply when Anirban Guha Thakurta, counsel of Debjani Mukherjee, submitted a petition before the court pleading closure of the investigation as the central investigating agency is yet to come to the “conclusion of investigation” even almost two years after the arrest of Mukherjee and the chief of Saradha Group Sudipto Sen.
On Thursday again, Ayon Chakraborty, counsel of suspended Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Kunal Ghosh, submitted the similar petition raising question on the legality of continuing the probe as CBI had failed to come to a conclusion even in two years.
In reply to the petition of Mukherjee’s counsel, CBI had submitted before the Court on Wednesday that it is applicable for Summon Procedure cases in which the punishment is below two years imprisonment.
Mukherjee’s counsel had, however, claimed that as per the West Bengal amendment of CrPC 167 (5) (III), an investigating agency has to complete a probe of financial crime within two years. After hearing to both, the Court had ordered CBI to submit the case dairy within 10.30 am on Thursday and the observation on Mukherjee’s counsel’s plea will also about to come on Thursday.
In such a moment, Ghosh’s counsel submitted a similar petition on Thursday. In connection to the new petition on the same ground, CBI prayed before the Court for some time to reply to the petition. The Court has given time to CBI till August 16.
It may be mentioned that an investigating agency can submit “conclusion of investigation” even after 2 years, but in those cases, its officers has to approach the court to assign a particular case as a “special” one. But in this case nothing as such was mentioned by the CBI.