New Delhi: The anti-corruption department (ACB) of the Delhi authorities on Wednesday registered a case towards AAP chief m Aami Celebration (AAP) chief and former MLA Satyendar Jain levelling allegations of corruption and bribery in reference to the Rs 571 crore CCTV venture for the nationwide capital.
In accordance with Madhur Verma, Joint Commissioner of Police (CP) and Head of ACB, the liquidated damages value Rs 16 crore have been allegedly arbitrarily waived by receiving a bribe of Rs 7 crore.
An FIR was registered towards former Public Works Division (PWD) Minister Jain underneath part 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after receiving earlier approval from the competent authority.
ACB stated, “Bribery of Rs 7 crore was allegedly organized to be paid to Satyendra Jain to waive off the Rs 16 crore penalty for delays in CCTV set up.”
Regardless of earlier delays, Bharat Digital Restricted (BEL) obtained further orders for an additional 1.four lakh cameras underneath the venture.
The bribe was allegedly paid by contractors who benefited from the extra orders.
In accordance with officers, the venture was allegedly carried out in a “shoddy method”, with many cameras being dysfunctional even on the time of venture handover. Furthermore, funds have been artificially inflated to accommodate the bribes involving completely different distributors.
ACB has already examined a BEL officer, who confirmed the allegations and supplied an in depth criticism.
Paperwork from PWD and BEL are being scrutinized for additional proof.
Approval underneath Part 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was granted, permitting prosecution.
The FIR has been filed underneath Sections 7/13 (1)(a) of the POC Act and Part 120B (felony conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Over a month in the past, the Union Ministry of House Affairs (MHA) requested the President’s approval to prosecute former Delhi Minister Satyendra Kumar Jain underneath Part 218 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, sources stated.
In accordance with sources, the request was made primarily based on proof gathered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The company’s findings reportedly present adequate grounds for authorized proceedings towards Jain.
