‘No embargo for law enforcement agencies to act on prima facie findings of STF’s status report’

Referring to the opinion by the AG, Chattopadhyaya further said, ‘He (AG) further opined that it appears that the intent of the Court was to treat prima facie report of the STF as case/police diary as provided under the provisions of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no bar for further investigation’.

Chattopadhyaya further wrote that ,’In cases mentioned in the report and associated cases of drug trafficking, it is essential that the offences of Section 25, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act, apart from additional offences which are indicated or may emerge later, need to be investigated.’

Chattopadhyaya wrote that it was on record that ‘many of the persons prosecuted in these cases have been convicted for offences under the NDPS Act by the court of competent jurisdiction and therefore their involvement in such drug trafficking is well established.’ He added, ‘Participating in the manufacture, processing, transport, sale, trafficking and distribution of narcotics is an offence.’ He further wrote, ‘Facilitating, abetting, conspiring, assisting and gaining financial benefit from such offences and profiting from and using such illegal proceeds and money received from such activities of drug trafficking is an offence.’

DGP further pointed out at ‘intentional use of government machinery, including vehicles and security personnel and other Government facilities for assisting, facilitating and abetting drug trafficking and other illegal activities is an offence.’

In his opinion on December 1, Punjab Advocate General Deepinder Singh Patwalia, as mentioned in the FIR said, ‘Past laxity in dealing with the issue has accentuated the problem.’

Patwalia referred to developments in the court where Inspector Inderjit Singh was said to be allegedly found to be in collusion with drug traffickers and was closely associated to then Moga SSP Raj Jeet Singh where it was submitted that Harpreet Sidhu should focus on the ‘complicity of Raj Jeet Singh, if any, in the context of breaking the nexus between Law Enforcement Agency and drug traffickers.’

The STF noted that for the purpose of inquiry, four issues were identified namely ‘Did Bikram Singh Majithia have an association with Satpreet Singh @ Satta, Maninder Singh Aulakh @ Bittu Aulakh, Parminder Singh @ Pindi, Amrinder Singh @ Laddi and Jagjit Chahal…Whether Bikram Singh Majithia played a role in supply of pseudoephedrine to Satpreet Singh @Satta and others?; and whether there are any links regarding monetary transactions of Bikram Majithia with the accused figuring in the drugs case?’

The drugs case and the characters

Jagdish Singh Bhola was arrested on November 11, 2013 in the multi-crore drugs case registered at Banur police station on May 15, 2013. In his statements before the ED on January 23 and 24, 2014 he disclosed that accused in the case Parminder Singh Pindi and Satpreet Singh Satta had come to attend marriage of Bikram Singh Majithia. As per Jagjit Singh Chahal, who was one of the accused in the case, disclosure to ED, Satta is a resident of Canada and ‘whenever he visited India, he used to stay at the residence of Bikram Singh Majithia’. As per Chahal, Majithia had provided one gunman, driver and Innova car to Satta.

Chahal was allegedly involved in the manufacturing/supply of illegal drugs/substances and stated before the ED that he gave Rs 35 lakhs to Majithia in seven to eight instalments between 2007 and 2012 for ‘election purpose’. Chahal stated that Majithia received funds in Canada, which was denied by Majithia during his questioning by the ED. Chahal was allegedly supplying pseudo-ephedrine to Satta.