Ex-Ranchi DC seeks lawyer’s statement from ED for fair trial in Army land scam
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK Ranchi, Jan 17: Former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner (DC) Chhavi Ranjan, currently in custody for his alleged involvement in…
File Photo of Chhavi Ranjan
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, Jan 17: Former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner (DC) Chhavi Ranjan, currently in custody for his alleged involvement in the Ranchi Army Land Scam, has filed a petition in the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) court. He has requested the court to direct the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide the statement of advocate Himanshu Mehta.
Mehta’s statement is one of 49 “unrelied” documents identified during the ED’s investigation. Although the court had previously instructed the ED to share all “unrelied” documents with Ranjan, Mehta’s statement was excluded from the shared materials.
What are ‘unrelied documents’?
In legal terms, “unrelied documents” refer to evidence or materials collected during an investigation but not used by the prosecuting agency (in this case, the ED) to build its case. Such documents are deemed irrelevant or unnecessary for proving the allegations in court. Here, the ED classified Mehta’s statement as an “unrelied” document. However, Ranjan claims it is crucial to his defence and has sought the court’s intervention to obtain it.
According to media reports, Mehta admitted to the ED that he received ₹1.20 crore in connection with the case.
In his petition, Ranjan, a 2011 batch IAS officer, stated that the ED recorded Mehta’s statement regarding the Army land case. “Notably, Himanshu Mehta is alleged in the Prosecution Complaint of fabricating documents to support the fraudulent claim of one Jayant Karnad over 455 decimals of Army land in Morhabadi,” Ranjan said.
The petition further points out that the Prosecution Complaint provides details of how Mehta allegedly guided Karnad to create fraudulent claims over the Morhabadi property. “Despite these allegations, Mehta’s statement has not been shared with Ranjan, though statements of co-accused Karnad have been provided,” the petition adds.
Ranjan also highlighted that, in his statement to the ED, Karnad alleged that Mehta approached him with plans to fraudulently claim ownership of the Morhabadi property and execute illegal transactions. “Karnad revealed that a significant portion of the proceeds from various sale deeds executed in 2019 was transferred to, or at the behest of, Mehta,” the petition states.
The chargesheet reportedly shows that Karnad sold the property to 14 different buyers, but the mutation of the property was rejected because it remained under the Indian Army’s possession.
The petition also referred to the Provisional Attachment Order, which elaborates on Mehta’s role in the case.
Also Read: 2nd JPSC job scam: Ranchi CBI court summons 72, including ex-Chairman, members
Ranjan argued that Mehta’s June 28, 2023, statement is directly relevant to his defence. He claimed that Mehta’s repeated failed attempts to acquire the Morhabadi property through fraudulent claims made by Karnad demonstrate the absence of mens rea (criminal intent) on Ranjan’s part to deal with the property illegally.
Additionally, Ranjan pointed out that the fraudulent sale deeds executed by Karnad occurred before he took charge as Ranchi DC in July 2020. “No actions furthering Karnad’s claims took place during my tenure as DC,” Ranjan stated.
The petition emphasises that Mehta’s statemented recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA is critical to Ranjan’s defence. He argued that the absence of this statement severely undermines his right to a fair trial.
