)
Former Union Telecom Minister A Raja today denied all allegations made by the CBI against him. He said that CBI’s move to register a disproportionate assets (DA) case against him is contradictory to the earlier findings of the Delhi CBI office and is politically motivated.
“There is a difference of opinion inside CBI and it is evident from this move. This is against the Supreme Court order, documents and truth,” said Raja, the former Union Telecom Minister and senior leader of DMK.
CBI has registered a case against Raja and 16 others, including his wife Parameswari, nephew Paramesh Kumar, C Krishnamurthy, who is also a director of Kovai Shelters Promoters based in Perambalur and Green House Promoters in Chennai. The latter was owned, among others, by Sadiq Basha, an alleged associate of Raja who had committed suicide, Basha’s wife Reha Banu and other close relatives and associates of the former Union minister.
Raja is already facing CBI investigations in the infamous 2G spectrum allocation case.
Raja denied CBI’s allegation that assets owned by Greenhouse Promoters are owned by him. He claimed that courts in the past have said he doesn’t have any link with the company.
“CBI Delhi says their is no culpability on my part, whereas CBI Chennai says that all the properties accumulated by the Green House are mine. This inconsistency and difference of opinion not only raises doubt about CBI’s skills, but reveals that CBI’s move is politically motivated.”
Raja said whatever the properties he had disclosed during the 2014 Lok Sabha election remains the same.
“Investigating officer of the 2G case, who investigated all of my properties from 2004 to 2010, both moveable and immoveable, admitted before the Court that their are no disproportionate assets.”
According to Raja, Vivek Priyadarshi, investigating officer of the CBI on November 13, 2013 told the special judge that 'there is no case of disproportionate assets against accused A. Raja.”
“But now CBI Chennai Unit says their is accumulation of wealth without knowing documents which was scrutinised by the Delhi CBI,” said Raja.
The people who were mentioned in the FIR, filed by Chennai CBI, were called by the ED, CBI and Income Tax earlier and they have shared their opinion between themselves, as per the direction given by the Apex Court inspite of that and without knowing the documents and without knowing that scrutinisation was done by the CBI, IT and ED as per the Supreme Court direction, this FIR has been filed, said Raja.
In a letter to the Superintendent of Police, CBI-ACB, Chennai Raja said “... I have been under investigation for allegations concerning the grant of UAS licenses and allocation of specturm by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India in 2007-08”. The CBI,ACB, New Delhi registered an FIR in this connection in 2009 and followed by registration of an ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate in 2010. The IT Department also started investigation in the matter.
The Supreme Court in 2010 directed all the three agencies – CBI,ED and IT – to coordinate their investigation and share information with each other. It has been confirmed by the investigating officers of CBI and ED in their testimony before the Special Judge, Patiala House Court that they have complied with the Order and shared information with each other.
Raja said there cannot be reinvestigation of the same matter (asset disproportionate) for the same period again, by another branch of the same investigating agency, more so, without even verifying and applying its mind to the detailed scrutiny already done.
“This is simply harrassment for reasons that you are very well aware, and it is also not justifiable to law”, said Raja, while asking the agency to close the FIR, since the subject matter has already been investigated by CBI, ED, IT Department and any further investigation (if permissible) will have to be done by them only, under the earlier FIR already registered in New Delhi.
“There is a difference of opinion inside CBI and it is evident from this move. This is against the Supreme Court order, documents and truth,” said Raja, the former Union Telecom Minister and senior leader of DMK.
CBI has registered a case against Raja and 16 others, including his wife Parameswari, nephew Paramesh Kumar, C Krishnamurthy, who is also a director of Kovai Shelters Promoters based in Perambalur and Green House Promoters in Chennai. The latter was owned, among others, by Sadiq Basha, an alleged associate of Raja who had committed suicide, Basha’s wife Reha Banu and other close relatives and associates of the former Union minister.
Raja is already facing CBI investigations in the infamous 2G spectrum allocation case.
Raja denied CBI’s allegation that assets owned by Greenhouse Promoters are owned by him. He claimed that courts in the past have said he doesn’t have any link with the company.
“CBI Delhi says their is no culpability on my part, whereas CBI Chennai says that all the properties accumulated by the Green House are mine. This inconsistency and difference of opinion not only raises doubt about CBI’s skills, but reveals that CBI’s move is politically motivated.”
Raja said whatever the properties he had disclosed during the 2014 Lok Sabha election remains the same.
“Investigating officer of the 2G case, who investigated all of my properties from 2004 to 2010, both moveable and immoveable, admitted before the Court that their are no disproportionate assets.”
According to Raja, Vivek Priyadarshi, investigating officer of the CBI on November 13, 2013 told the special judge that 'there is no case of disproportionate assets against accused A. Raja.”
“But now CBI Chennai Unit says their is accumulation of wealth without knowing documents which was scrutinised by the Delhi CBI,” said Raja.
The people who were mentioned in the FIR, filed by Chennai CBI, were called by the ED, CBI and Income Tax earlier and they have shared their opinion between themselves, as per the direction given by the Apex Court inspite of that and without knowing the documents and without knowing that scrutinisation was done by the CBI, IT and ED as per the Supreme Court direction, this FIR has been filed, said Raja.
In a letter to the Superintendent of Police, CBI-ACB, Chennai Raja said “... I have been under investigation for allegations concerning the grant of UAS licenses and allocation of specturm by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India in 2007-08”. The CBI,ACB, New Delhi registered an FIR in this connection in 2009 and followed by registration of an ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate in 2010. The IT Department also started investigation in the matter.
The Supreme Court in 2010 directed all the three agencies – CBI,ED and IT – to coordinate their investigation and share information with each other. It has been confirmed by the investigating officers of CBI and ED in their testimony before the Special Judge, Patiala House Court that they have complied with the Order and shared information with each other.
Raja said there cannot be reinvestigation of the same matter (asset disproportionate) for the same period again, by another branch of the same investigating agency, more so, without even verifying and applying its mind to the detailed scrutiny already done.
“This is simply harrassment for reasons that you are very well aware, and it is also not justifiable to law”, said Raja, while asking the agency to close the FIR, since the subject matter has already been investigated by CBI, ED, IT Department and any further investigation (if permissible) will have to be done by them only, under the earlier FIR already registered in New Delhi.
