Probe Union minister Shekhawat at Sanjivani scam, dictates Jaipur courtroom | Jaipur News


Union water resources ministry Gajendra Singh Shekhawat

JAIPUR: Union water resources ministry Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, who’s confronting a Special Operations Group (SOG) probe on costs of attempting to topple the Congress government in Rajasthan by horse gambling, is in for more trouble.
A courtroom in Jaipur has led the SOG to look into the use of the Union, wife along with his partners that the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society scam at Jodhpur amounting to Rs 884 crore. The additional district and sessions court order followed a request by Ladu Singh and Guman Singh, both residents of Barmer, who’d spent Rs 54 lakh and 24 lakh respectively from the plot of the society however neglected to receive their cash back.
A K Jain, counsel for the petitioners, said the SOG was investigating the case after filing an FIR (No. 32/2019) on August 23, 2019. Preliminary research found that approximately 50,000 shareholders were scammed of about Rs 884 crore.
Four of those accused in the case were detained including kingpin Vikram Singh. The petitioners said their part in the scam has been researched nor land captured.
According to the petitioners, Shekhawat, his spouse Naunand Kanwar and their partners Rajendra Baheti and Kevalchand Dakliya had redirected the society cash in their property and other businesses promoted by these specifically Surya Bhoomi Build Infra Pvt Ltd, Lucid Pharma Pvt Ltd and Nav Prabha Buildtech Pvt Ltd etc.. Some land was bought in foreign countries such as Ethiopia.
The petitioners’ program from the magistrate court trying to produce the minister and his partners function in the fraud has been reversed on July 13 on the floor that they don’t have any locus standi since they were neither petitioners nor respondents although their titles amounts in the record of fooled investors.
Jain contended that the petitioners were victims of this fraud and the magistrate court verdict is prohibited as identification in the case is still happening at the instance below 173(8) of IPC.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here