Punjab ex-Director General of Police (DGP) Sumedh Singh Saini filed an application in the court objecting to the clean chit given to CM Captain Amarinder Singh and other accused in the case. (Express photo by Rana Simranjit Singh)
Replying to an application filed by Punjab ex-Director General of Police (DGP) Sumedh Singh Saini in the Rs 1,144-crore alleged Ludhiana City Centre ‘scam’, the state of Punjab, representing the vigilance bureau, filed its reply in the court of sessions judge Gurbir Singh Friday submitting that Saini is “neither an informant nor a complainant and hence has no locus standi to file the present petition.”
On November 28, Saini filed an application in the court objecting to the clean chit given to chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh and other accused in the case. Challenging the closure report filed by vigilance bureau in a decade-old case in which Captain is booked under corruption charges, Saini pleaded that being the one who ordered filing of FIR in the case in March 2007, he should be heard once before court accepts cancellation report and that he is in possession of “sensitive material” related to the case that he wants to submit in a “sealed envelope.”
On Friday, the Punjab government submitted a 20-page reply undersigned by current Ludhiana vigilance SSP Rupinder Singh. The reply says, “probe in the case was initiated by the order of the then CM Captain Amarinder Singh in September 2006 at whose instance, the director vigilance Punjab CSR Reddy had conducted the enquiry and later it was completed by three officers of the vigilance bureau. Hence, none of them were private parties but functionaries of the state and had acted in discharge of their
“The file in question was never put up before applicant (Saini) for any order or approval. Hence, he is not an informant and cannot be given any right to be heard. He never acted in any private capacity while discharging functions of director VB Punjab. So, once he has demitted office on his transfer, he has no role to play and has become functus-officio,” says the reply.
Asking why Saini did not submit “sensitive material” for four years when he headed vigilance bureau from 2007-2012, the reply says, ‘“The applicant worked as director and chief director of vigilance bureau from 2007 to 2012 and a report under section 173 (2) of CrPC in the case was filed in the court on 12.12.2007 wherein it was mentioned that the investigation is still continuing and when any evidence/document or oral evidence is collected on record, it shall be produced before court by way of supplementary report. But despite the fact that he remained in the post for more than four years, he did not get the report concluded. So he had no role to play in the initiation or submission of report.”
The state added that Saini “kept mum and intentionally concealed material if there was any. This fact also indicates that investigation had not been conducted fairly.” The next date of hearing is scheduled for December 17.