Chargesheet filed in HAL case only for namesake: CBI court

New Indian Express

04-05-2025

BENGALURU: It appears that based only on the departmental inquiry report, an investigation officer (IO) filed the final chargesheet without conducting his own proper investigation. The IO neither opted to collect the required available documents nor examined and recorded statements of material witnesses.
Also, the chargesheet was filed without a proper investigation to unearth the truth, observed the Special Court for CBI Cases, acquitting S Velmurugan, then Deputy General Manager, HR Rotary Wing Research and Design Centre (RWRDC), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and one Binish Thomas, who were chargesheeted by the CBI in a corruption case.
It was alleged that Velmurugan, between 2015 and 2018, abused his official position and unauthorisedly promised KC Samuel, chairman of Evehans Academy to lease HAL land of 6.5 acres at Doddanekkundi, opposite ISRO complex, in favour of the Academy, which was looking for land to set up a training institute in aerospace and other engineering courses. He allegedly did it without the approval of competent authorities. He also allegedly made Samuel pay him and Binish Rs 1.30 crore as 'due deposit' for leasing the land by committing the offence under provisions of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. HAL filed the complaint with the CBI, Bengaluru on August 17, 2020.
Shridhar Gopalakrishna Bhat, Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, said the prosecution failed to prove with convincing, cogent and acceptable evidence the fraudulent and dishonest inducement of Samuel. It is clear that the IO has not conducted the investigation as required. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be said the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence of cheating against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the judge added.
The departmental inquiry was held against Velmurugan for the abuse of official position and misusing the letterhead of RWRDC, HAL, for leasing the HAL property. The inquiry proved charges against him and he was demoted to the Senior Manager Grade from Deputy Manager Grade VII. The accused, however, told the court that it was challenged before the high court.
The court observed that in the departmental enquiry, the standard of proof is only preponderance of probability and whereas, in the criminal prosecution, it is beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in criminal prosecution, the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. But the prosecution failed to prove the payment of Rs 1.30 crore against accused No. 1 and 2, the court said.