MSCB Scam Closure Report: Special Court Seeks Complainant's Reply

Mumbai: In connection with the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank (MSCB) scam case, the Special MP and MLA court on Saturday issued notice to the original complainant businessman, Surinder Arora, calling his reply on the second closure report filed by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW).

Besides Arora, a petition filed by Anna Hazare challenging the previous closure report is still pending. The court would take up all the pleas for hearing from March 1.

The EOW of the Mumbai Police had in September 2020 filed the first closure report in the alleged Rs25,000 crore fraud at MSC Bank claiming that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted to probe the allegations did not find any evidence of criminality in the case.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) had in October 2022, taken up further investigation into the allegations of several irregularities considering issues raised by the complainants. However, the agency filed the second closure report in January 2024.

The EOW has claimed that even after the further investigation into issues raised by the complainant, the agency found no evidence against the office bearers of the bank.

Court to hear complainants before accepting closure report

The court would hear the complainants before accepting the closure report. Arora, who had approached the Bombay High Court followed by which the case was registered, had objected to the closure report and alleged that SIT had not touched several aspects. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) which also had initiated a parallel investigation for money laundering too had claimed that SIT did not investigate several aspects of the case. The ED also had sought to intervene in the hearing but the plea was rejected by the special court claiming that agency was neither a complaint nor a victim.

The ED had claimed that loans were given to the sugar mills/companies controlled by relatives of the directors of the bank without assessing loan repayment capacity of the sugar mills/companies. The agency also alleged that the bank did not follow the process stated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 while auctioning defaulting Sugar Sahkari Kharkhana (SSK). It was claimed that SSK were sold at below reserve price.