HP govt trying to protect CM, scuttle DA case probe: CBI to HC

Himachal Pradesh government is going "hammer and tongs" to scuttle the investigation in the disproportionate assets case against Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh and others and trying to "protect" him, the CBI today alleged in the Delhi High Court.
The probe agency claimed before Justice Vipin Sanghi that the state government was trying to "blatantly frustrate" the probe into the case, a contention which was challenged by Singh's counsel.
"I will show this court how serious the offences are. They (state government) are going hammer and tongs to scuttle the probe," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P S Patwalia, appearing for CBI, told the court.

The ASG said the state government was not a petitioner in the matter and its advocate general cannot raise the issue of provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act as the applicants have not raised it in their pleas filed before the court.
"They (Virbhadra and other petitioners) have challenged the lodging of FIR. They have said whatever they wanted to say. He (Advocate General of HP) cannot go on like this. We are not having an academic discussion," he said.
Patwalia further said "tghe state is trying to frustrate the investigation. This is the way how the state is protecting the petitioner".

Countering the contention, the counsel appearing for Singh said, "we do not need state government to protect us".

During the arguments, advocate general of Himachal Pradesh said he has raised constitutional issues which were required to be looked into by the court.
He argued that in this matter, CBI entered in the state and conducted probe and raids, without taking its consent.
However, Patwalia said if the state government wants to raise these issues, they can file a petition in the court.
"Let the state file a petition for Chief Minister and say that CBI is illegal. Let us see the true face of the state," he said, adding "it's obviously a blatant attempt to frustrate the investigation".

"The state is not a petitioner here. They cannot raise the issues which the petitioners have not raised in their petition and their arguments," he said.
During the arguments, the advocate general of Himachal
Pradesh also referred to a judgement passed by the Gauhati High Court declaring the CBI as unconstitutional.
However, the ASG said the operation of that order has been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Earlier, Singh's counsel had said in the court that CBI cannot on its own decide to probe offences outside Delhi without the consent of the concerned state government.
The 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 the 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 charge sheet in the matter.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in an interim order on October 1, 2015, had restrained the agency from arresting, interrogating or filing a charge sheet against Singh in the case without its permission.
The matter, in which Himachal Pradesh HC had passed the interim order, was transferred by the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court, which on April 6 this year had directed CBI not to arrest Singh and asked him to join the probe.

On November 5 last year, the apex court had transferred Singh's plea from Himachal Pradesh HC to Delhi HC, saying it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but "simply" transferring the petition "in interest of justice and to save the institution (judiciary) from any embarrassment".
CBI had moved the apex court seeking transfer of the case here and setting aside the interim order granting protection from arrest and other relief granted to Virbhadra.
A DA case was lodged against the Chief Minister and others by CBI under sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 109 (punishment for abetment) of the IPC.