Leader of opposition in the state’s legislative council Pravin Darekar on Monday secured interim protection from arrest till Wednesday from a sessions court in a cheating and forgery case lodged against him alleging that the forgery enabled him to become a director at a co-operative bank.
Mumbai Police in its reply refuted the claim made by Darekar and stated that the Prima facie offence is made out against Darekar.
The police said that the accused had willfully posed himself as labour and took advantage to gain money. He prepared forged documents and submitted them to the co-operative sector. The resignation of the accused came after the objection is nothing but to show false innocence, said the police reply.
The police have refused the claim made by Darekar in his application that the complaint is imaginary and it does not reach the conclusion of cheating and forgery.
It has appeared in the investigation that in the year 2017, Pravin Darekar received wages of Rs. 25,750 but he was shown as a supervisor in the Pratidnya labour institute. Interestingly, on days when Darekar was shown doing work of labourers, during those days, Darekar was in the assembly session in Nagpur.
The government's reply opposing Darekar's pre-arrest bail states that according to Darekar's affidavit, which he had filed during the 2016 State Assembly election, claimed that his family-owned property was worth Rs. 2 cr 13 lakh. The affidavit also stated that Pravin Darekar has property worth Rs. 91 lakh. Furthermore, Darekar is receiving Rs. 2 lakh 50 thousand as monthly remuneration from the government. It shows that Darekar is not a labourer. His affidavit also stated he has an independent business. He never mentioned in his affidavit that he is a labourer, states government reply.
Thereafter, in 2017 he fought the election of Mumbai Bank showing as a labourer and was employed as the Chairman of the bank from 2017 to 2022. He also received Rs. 4 lakh 74 thousand remunerations from the bank. He has cheated the state government and bank, the government reply mentions.
The police in its reply stated that during the investigation, it has appeared that the accused posed forged documents as real hence, section 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been invoked against him on March 20. the investigation is in the primary stage. Police stated they couldn't do any further investigation because from March 17 to 20 there was a holiday.
The police in its reply refuted the claim made by Darekar that nowhere it has written that a labourer should be removed from the post of labour if he gets rich after some time. He also never got any notice from anyone till the offence got registered.
Police reply says that as per government notification of 1987, he should be removed from the category of labour. Darekar being a member of the assembly himself did not inform the co-operative department and Pratidnya labour institute where he enrolled himself as a labourer that he is no longer working as labour. The said act of Darekar is sheer cheating, says the police.
Since 1999 Darekar has been elected as chairman of the Bank and has wrongly received 4 lakh 74 thousand in the form of remuneration. Darekar became a member of Pratidnya Labour institute in 1997 but he did not submit any documents in support of claiming labourer.
The complaint was filed at the MRA Marg police station by AAP leader Dhananjay Shinde who alleged that Darekar had claimed to be a ‘labour’ to become a member of a Pratidnya labour co-operative society.
This society had, in turn, authorised him to represent it in elections to the Mumbai District Co-operative Bank. Shinde also alleged that being the Chairman of the bank, Darekar had disbursed various loans.
Darekar had approached the court and stated in his anticipatory bail plea that the FIR was lodged with malafide intentions. He said he had raised certain facts in the house and due to it, NCP leaders Anil Deshmukh and Nawab Malik had got arrested and that the state government was behind him and pressurizing the police.
He further claimed that on the same facts as the present complaint, an FIR was registered in 2015, but had come to be closed. He said that the court had rejected the closure report and directed the police to probe the matter, but he had appealed against that order.
