HC summons entire record in Bhola drug racket by April 30

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today called for entire record on probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in Punjab’s drug haul case. For the purpose, a Division Bench of the High Court set April 30 as the deadline.

The development is significant as ED officer Niranjan Singh had questioned Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia in the Rs6,000-crore money laundering international drug racket. As a result of today’s order, the case hovering around his transfer could be fast-tracked.

Niranjan Singh, shifted from Jalandhar to Kolkata, also submitted during the course of arguments that he could complete the investigation within six months. As the case came up for resumed hearing this afternoon, the Bench headed by Justice AK Mittal wanted to know whether Majithia had been examined in the matter.

The ED officer’s counsel informed the Bench that Majithia was examined on December 26 last year and the officer was shifted from the case on January 16. He then requested the court to summon the entire record pertaining to the case, including the details on Majithia’s examination, for a comprehensive overview and monitoring of the matter.

Niranjan Singh had earlier claimed that the two substitute officers had hardly any experience to deal with such cases, casting a shadow on the reason behind his impending transfer. The officer also claimed that the probe was far from over and any assertion to this effect was a “patent lie”.

The officer’s claims came at a time when the ED was trying to convince the court that his transfer would not affect the investigation of ongoing cases at its Jalandhar zonal office.

The plea against the transfer was filed by Navkiran Singh in the ongoing drugs case. Navkiran Singh, on behalf of NGO Lawyers for Human Rights International, had contended that Niranjan Singh’s transfer was neither in public interest nor in the interests of justice.

The case was being supervised by the High Court for last more than a year; and status reports were being filed by the State and Central agencies. The shifting out an investigating officer, playing an important role in the investigation, was not beyond suspicion….

“In the present case, since the Enforcement Directorate has interrogated more than 50 important witnesses and the investigation is at fag end, the changing of investigating officer would be sending the investigation directionless…,” he had claimed.