, Ramesh Chandra (former Executive Chairman, Unitech), Ajay Chandra (MD, Unitech), Upma Chandra, Seema Manga (Secretary, Unitech) and M/s Unitech Ltd. All these along with few unidentified persons were accused of being involved in some corrupt and illegal activities.){kind=link}
A Delhi court discharged all allegations against Neeraj Walia (Advocate), Ramesh Chandra (former Executive Chairman, Unitech), Ajay Chandra (MD, Unitech), Upma Chandra, Seema Manga (Secretary, Unitech) and M/s Unitech Ltd. All these along with few unidentified persons were accused of being involved in some corrupt and illegal activities.
The bench of CBI Special Judge Harish Kumar did not find that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused persons and stated that materials collected by the Investigating Agency on consideration do not give rise to grave suspicion about the commission of offence by the accused persons.
The FIR was registered on July 31, 2018 on source information informing that Neeraj Walia (Advocate), Neeraj Kumar (the then S.H.O P.S. Saket), Sanjay Sharma (Inspector, P.S. Hauz Khas), Ramesh Chandra, Ajay Chandra, Upma Chandra, Seema Manga and Pradeep Kumar of M/s Unitech Limited and some unknown persons were indulging in corrupt and illegal activities.
Source informer had informed that accused Neeraj Kumar and Sanjay Sharma in conspiracy with Neeraj Walia, Advocate and in connivance with Seema Manga had been obtaining undue advantage in the form of illegal gratification from M/s Unitech Limited through Neeraj Walia, Advocate for improperly and dishonestly performing their duties in the investigation of the 58 criminal cases against the directors/promoters of M/s Unitech Ltd.
A CBI Team had nabbed Neeraj Kumar with Rs 2 lakh in cash upon Ministry of Home Affairs authorizing permission to CBI for interception of mobile numbers of accused Neeraj Walia, Lakhvir Chand Sharma, accused Seema Manga, Pradeep Kumar and a landline number installed in Tihar Jail in the name of accused Ajay Chandra (landline was installed by the order of the Honble Supreme Court to facilitate settlement with home buyers etc.)
The Court opined that though the accused guarded language, all the calls need to be seen independently and it was difficult to establish whether these conversations were part of same subject, payment of illegal gratification.
In the present case, the conversation between accused Seema Manga and accused Neeraj Walia on the one hand and conversation between accused Neeraj Walia and Neeraj Kumar on the other cannot be simply connected to each other only because accused Neeraj Walia was handling cases of M/s Unitech Ltd. and accused Neeraj Kumar was the SHO of Saket Police Station where number of complaints against M/s Unitech Ltd. and its directors were pending investigation. Though this fact gives ground for suspicion (only if one’s mind is fed with a inculpatory context) but to have firm view one needs material to rule out the possibility of these conversations (between accused Seema Manga and accused Neeraj Walia on the one hand and between accused Neeraj Kumar and Neeraj Walia on the other) being independent of each other. This rule out could have been possible if all the conversations to and from mobile phone numbers of accused Seema Manga and accused Neeraj Walia had been placed on record.
Advocate Harsh K. Sharma appeared for Neeraj Walia.