Kochi: The Kerala High Court has criticised the CBI for ignoring a legal opinion given to it to register an FIR in connection with an alleged multi-crore land fraud case against Amrithanandamayi Mutt.
“Let the CBI wake up from the slumber. Let the CBI keep its eyes open. Let the CBI rise to the occasion and act accordingly as per the legal opinion it has received,” the court observed.
Justice B. Kemal Pasha passed the order while considering a petition filed by A.T. Raghunanth, managing partner of Sandeepani Smart Village, Angamaly. He argued that the CBI was not registering an FIR even after getting a legal opinion with regard to the purchase of a property at Angamaly.
“A legal opinion which was prepared after a threadbare examination of all the proceedings emphatically advised to have an imminent registration of the FIR and an investigation into the matter,” the court observed.
It seems the CBI has decided to refer the matter for the Vigilance inquiry by the bank.
“Considering the seriousness of the allegations involved, this is not a matter wherein the CBI can leave the matters as such to the mercy of the bank to have a Vigilance inquiry by the bank itself. The CBI should not think about such a course of action,” the court observed.
The petitioner alleged that former officials of the Syndicate Bank at Angamaly had colluded with Brahmachari Prakash of Mata Amrithanandamayi Mutt to cheat him. Prakash, who allegedly agreed to purchase the property for Rs 2.5 crore from the petitioner, managed to bring the property to auction sale through the officials of the bank in Sarfaesi proceedings and could bid it in auction for Rs 165 lakh.
The petitioner had taken a loan of Rs 1.23 crore from the Syndicate Bank, Angamaly branch, for a tourism project. Owing to bad health, he could not go ahead with it. As he had defaulted in payment of the loan, he was on the lookout for a buyer for his mortgaged property.
Brahmachari Prakash who claimed to be a representative of the Amrithanathamayi Mutt, came forward to buy the property for the Mutt and the petitioner reached a sale agreement with him, it was stated.
