Actual complainant surfaces in court,allowed to submit his arguments on next date of hearing on May 26. The closure report filed by the CBI in the case registered against former top bureaucrats of Chandigarh Administration regarding the alleged corruption in the controversial Amusement-cum-Theme Park project was not accepted by the special CBI court here on Thursday. In a dramatic turn of events,a Chandigarh resident appeared before special CBI Judge Vimal Kumar,and objected to the closure report,claiming he was the actual complainant and the CBIs officer shown as the complainant was merely a pro forma complainant. The case pertains to an FIR registered against former UT advisor Lalit Sharma,former home secretary Krishna Mohan,former director (tourism) Vivek Atray and M/s Unitech Limited through its managing director Ajay Chandra. All the four were booked on charges of criminal conspiracy,cheating,destruction of evidence and corruption. A local resident,Vivek Aditya,who had filed a series of complaints with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),New Delhi,blowing the lid off the alleged scam pertaining to conceptualisation and allotment of multi-crore amusement-cum-theme park project,filed an application in the court on Thursday,claiming he was the actual complaint in the case and he must be heard before accepting the closure report. Based on his application,the court refused to accept the closure report,and asked Aditya to submit his arguments on May 26 the next date of hearing. As per the law,the complaint has to be heard by the court,before accepting or rejecting the closure report. In case,the complainant raises objection to the closure report and expresses his dissatisfaction with the investigation,the court shall decide whether to go ahead and accept the closure report or order a re-investigation, said a lawyer. Aditya urged the court to supply him a copy of the closure report and related documents,since he was the complainant. The court granted his request. The effective proceedings in this case started,not with the CBI,but with the CVC,where I was the complainant. The whole process was initiated on my complaint to the CVC,which first conducted an inquiry and later told the CBI to hold a thorough inquiry into the case, Aditya said in his application. The applicant said he was the complainant in the Filmcity case (another controversial multi-crore mega project) and had told the CBI officials during the inquiry that they were not taking a holistic view of both the cases (Filmcity and Theme Park) but treating each case separately. Mentioning another criminal case registered by the Delhi CBI against Major Nirvikar Singh,a former aide-de-camp of the then UT administrator-cum-Punjab Governor General S F Rodrigues,Aditya noted in his application,The CBI has seemed to miss out on the elephant in the room issue of the extremely large and unexplained properties acquired by Nirvikar Singh,during the same period as it is clear from newspaper reports. Before Aditya submitted his application,the CBIs Additional Superintendent of Police Karnail Singh,who is the complainant in the FIR registered by the CBI,on Thursday submitted that he had no objection to the closure report. Interestingly,Singh was the investigating officer in the probe into Filmcity project,in which the CBI also did not find any malafide on part of any of the UT officials. There are a lot of loopholes in the closure report filed by the CBI. I,being the actual complainant,should have been questioned by the CBI,but they never did so. It is a deliberate attempt by the CBI to let these officers off the hook by filing such a closure report, Aditya told The Indian Express.
