Mumbai: The multi-crore fake stamp paper scam probe took a new turn today (Feb 11, 2004) with a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Mumbai High Court challenging the appointment of Special Investigating Team (SIT) by the Maharashtra Government and urging for transfer of investigations to CBI.

Earlier, incarcerated former police commissioner R S Sharma had challenged the appointment of SIT chief S S Puri saying it was illegal and contended that a retired police officer like him could not assume the powers of Director General of Police. The matter is pending in Mumbai High Court which today decided to constitute a Bench to hear it.

The PIL, urging for CBI probe, will come up for hearing on February 25. Although it questions appointment of Puri as SIT chief, the PIL challenges formation of SIT by the State Government.

The PIL, filed by Yogesh Modi, prayed for stay on investigations carried out by SIT and urged for re-investigations by a legal authority. It urged for appointment of a judicial officer or a retired Judge to report to the court the extent of fresh investigation being carried out by SIT.

Challenging the Government resolution appointing SIT to probe the scam, the PIL alleged that instead of investigating primary offences the SIT had instead harped on allegations and counter allegations made by police officers against each other resulting in side-tracking of the main issue.

The PIL said what should have been part of the disciplinary proceedings was being investigated by SIT and hence judicial intervention was necessary to stop this.

The PIL said it would not like to go into the merits of the case being investigated by SIT or into the allegations of cops made against each other but would rather focus on the legality of formation of SIT and the appointment of retired officer to probe the scam which was otherwise not permissible under statutory prescriptions.

It alleged that while conducting the probe, the SIT had not given attention to the merits of subject matter of the alleged crime but instead concentrated on the role of policemen pertaining to the case.

The PIL argued that the SIT was constituted by a Government resolution dated November 2 although the first charge-sheet in this case was filed on September 3.

Thus SIT was appointed after the charge-sheet was filed in a Pune court. Under section 173 of CrPC, a charge-sheet cannot be filed unless investigation is complete, the PIL contended.