The ED’s complaint alleged that the text of the order of a chief judicial magistrate did not mention the word “consent” so that the officer believed he had to abide by court order and give his sample.
The FIR was apparently filed on April 20. However, the Delhi Police brass did not elaborate on the subject saying it was a sensitive issue.
The case pertains to an audio tape of a conversation purportedly between an ED official and a Kolkata businessman which surfaced last April. The tape’s content claimed payoffs in a coal smuggling case – being probed by ED – to Mamata Banerjee‘s nephew, Abhishek Banerjee.
Banerjee later filed a case with the Kolkata police in this regard subsequent to which the Kolkata police moved to take the joint director’s voice sample to match it with that of the audio tape.
Kolkata cops sent the court order to ED on several occasions through various channels even as the ED obtained the order copy directly from the court as well. The order obtained from the court apparently had the consent clause as per norms but the one sent by Kolkata police did not, an official claimed. A Kolkata police official apparently claimed to ED informally that it was a clerical error.
The ED officer in question, Kapil Raj, is supervising the probes in the coal and cattle smuggling cases in which Banerjee’s role is under the scanner. The Centre and Mamata Banerjee government have been at loggerheads over central agencies probing the illegal mining operations. The latest move by Delhi Police is being seen as another flashpoint between the two. The Delhi Police is likely to summon the officials of Kolkata police involved in the probe soon, a source claimed.
Kolkata Joint CP (Crime) Murlidhar Sharma said, “The investigating officer (IO) had obtained a copy of the CJM’s order from the GR section and the same was transmitted to the ED officer. However, during scrutiny of the records, it was discovered that in the copy of order provided by GR section, one line was missing. This was immediately brought to the knowledge of the court. The court sought an explanation from the GR office and after hearing passed an order to the effect that omission was not due to any mala-fide on part of GR. The court directed the IO to send certified copies of the order. ”