First conviction after SC verdict, Rasheed Masood set to lose MP seat

September 19, 2013
New Delhi, Sep 19: In the first conviction after the Supreme Court struck down a law that provided immunity to MPs and MLAs from immediate disqualification, a Special CBI court today held Rajya Sabha member Rasheed Masood guilty in a case of corruption and other offences and he is set to lose his seat. rasheed

Masood, Minister of Health in the VP Singh government between 1990 and 1991, was held guilty of fraudulently nominating undeserving candidates to MBBS seats allotted to Tripura in medical colleges across the country from the central pool.

Special CBI Judge J P S Malik held Masood guilty of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating) and 468 (forgery). He has, however, been acquitted of the charge under Section 471 IPC (using as genuine a forged document).

Masood's conviction is the first case after the July 10 Supreme Court judgement that struck down sub-section 4 of Section 8 of Representation of the People Act, under which incumbent MPs and MLAs can avoid disqualification till pendency of the appeal against conviction in a higher court. The appeal has to be made within three months of the conviction.

Congress member in Rajya Sabha and a party Working Committee member, Masood is all set to be disqualified under the provisions of RP Act that disqualifies anybody who has been convicted under sections of various laws including the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The quantum of punishment on Masood will be pronounced on October 1. The provisions under which Masood has been convicted attract imprisonment upto seven years.

66-year-old Masood has been held guilty on same counts in two other similar cases.

The three cases in which the Congress leader has been convicted form part of the eleven similar cases registered by CBI in 1996.

Besides Masood, the court has convicted on similar counts former top bureaucrats Gurdial Singh and retired IAS official Amal Kumar Roy, the then secretary of Tripura Chief Minister Sudhir Ranjan Majumdar, in six and five similar cases respectively.

Nine students who had fradulently got admission in the medical colleges have also been convicted for cheating. Two of them, including Masood's nephew, were juvenile at the time of the offence and their case had been transferred to the juvenile justice board on January 25, 2007.

The then Chief Minister of Tripura Sudhir Ranjan Majumdar and then health minister of the state, Kashi Ram Reang were also accused in the case. They passed away pending trial.

Masood had between 1989-91 illegally and fraudulently, in conspiracy with the then resident commissioner of Tripura, Gurdial Singh, nominated his nephew (who was a juvenile at the time of the offence), one other (also a juvenile) and Sachidanand Dwivedi to seats allocated from central pool for students of Tripura.

Sachidanand, one of the three students who secured admission in medical college through Masood, has also been held guilty for conspiracy, cheating, forgery for purpose of cheating, and also under the provisions of PC Act.

He was, however, acquitted of section 471 IPC (using as genuine a forged document).

In its charge sheets against Masood and others, the CBI had said that Tripura does not have any medical college of its own.

"Consequently some MBBS and BDS seats are allocated every year from central Pool by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India in various medical colleges across the country like Bhagalpur medical college, Bihar, Patliputra college (Dhanbad) and Gwalior Medical College (MP) etc," CBI counsel V N Ojha had told the court.

These seats are made available to Tripura for allotment to eligible students from the state on the basis of merit and only those students are eligible for taking the examination who are permanent residents of the state or whose parents have been residing there or are employees of Tripura government.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 8,2020

Mumbai, Mar 8: A day after the Enforcement Directorate registered a money laundering case against Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor and raided his premises, he was taken to the agency's office in Mumbai on Saturday for further questioning.

Kapoor, who was grilled by central agency's officials on Friday night at his Samudra Mahal residence in Mumbai, was shifted to the ED office in the metropolis around 12.30 pm.

ED officials said Kapoor was questioned throughout the night, with some rest time.

A senior ED official connected with the probe told IANS: "Kapoor will be questioned about Yes Bank loans to Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL)."

The official said that during searches a lot of incriminating documents were found and the agency wanted to grill him on his links with DHFL promoters and other companies.

Kapoor's alleged role in the disbursal of loan to a corporate entity and kickbacks reportedly received in his wife's bank account are also under probe.

The ED had filed the money laundering case against Kapoor and raided his residence, apart from issuing a look-out circular so that he does not flee the country.

The ED registered a money laundering case against Kapoor as a continuation of its probe against the DHFL wherein it was allegedly found that Rs 12,500 crore was diverted to 80 shell companies using one lakh fake borrowers. The transactions with these shell companies date back to 2015.

An ED official in New Delhi told IANS that the DHFL probe revealed that funds diverted by the DHFL originated from Yes Bank.

He said that the searches at Kapoor's residence on Friday night were meant to find out any irregularity in grant of loans to the DHFL by the Yes Bank.

The ED has accused Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan of DHFL of purchasing shares in five firms -- Faith Realtors, Marvel Township, Abe Realty, Poseidon Realty, and Random Realtors -- after which they were amalgamated with Sunblink.

The outstanding loans of these five firms, totalling around Rs 2,186 crore till July 2019, were allegedly appropriated onto the books of Sunblink to cover up the diversion of loans acquired from DHFL.

The ED's action comes after the RBI superseded Yes Bank Board for 30 days and appointed an administrator, putting a cap of Rs 50,000 on withdrawals by account holders for a month.

The RBI said that the bank's board was superseded "owing to serious deterioration in the financial position of the bank".

Former SBI CFO Prashant Kumar was appointed as administrator of Yes Bank, which has over 1,000 branches and 1,800-plus ATMs across the country.

On Thursday, Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said that the bank was on watch since 2017 and developments relating to it were monitored on a day-to-day basis.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 11,2020

New Delhi, May 11: With an increase of 4,213 cases in the past 24 hours, India's COVID-19 count reached 67,152 on Monday, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The number of active cases in the country rose to 44,029, while 20,916 patients have been cured and discharged and one has migrated, according to the Ministry.

The number of deaths in the country due to the infection reached 2,206 on Sunday.

Maharashtra, with 22,171 confirmed cases is the worst-affected due to the infection so far and is followed by Gujarat with 8,194 cases.

However, Tamil Nadu surpassed the national capital in total coronavirus cases numbers. Delhi has 6,923 reported cases while Tamil Nadu has 7,204 confirmed cases.

Maximum deaths due to coronavirus have so far been recorded in Maharashtra (832), followed by Gujarat which has toll of 493.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.