The special CBI judge had last month convicted and sentenced Kumar’s advocate wife Abha Kumar to three years’ imprisonment under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sanjeev Kumar was sentenced to 10 years in jail in 2013, along with former Haryana CM OP Chautala, in the teacher’s recruitment scam. CBI had booked a case against Kumar in 2005 for ‘acquiring disproportionate assets’ and his wife and father for ‘abetting’ the crime.
Before awarding the sentence, the court raised eyebrows on the conduct of the CBI investigating officer for not questioning Kumar’s brother. The court recorded that some of the alleged disproportionate assets, which include movable and immovable assets, were directly linked with Kumar’s brother, who is based in the UK and a doctor by profession.
“Despite this, he (brother) was never associated in any capacity during the investigation. The investigating officer never bothered to examine him or question him. It is interesting to further highlight that two flats situated in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, were purchased during the check period, allegedly ‘benami’ by Sanjiv Kumar. One of these was purchased by accused Dr. Maheshwar Kumar (deceased father) whereas the other was purchased by Dr. Rajiv Kumar (UK-based brother),” the order reads.
It adds: “Investigating officer made Dr Maheshwar Kumar an abettor by concluding that the flat purchased by him was ‘benami’ of Sanjiv Kumar, Dr Rajiv Kumar was left untouched even though the evidence led was that it was Sanjiv Kumar who had paid the entire amount for both the flats… It remained an unexplained mystery as to why was the IO so kind towards Dr Rajiv Kumar so as to leave him out altogether from the ambit of his detailed investigation but scuffed Dr Maheshwar Kumar by his neck when the role of both appeared to be identical.”
It was CBI’s case that Sanjeev Kumar acquired disproportionate assets worth over ₹4 crore during 1996-2005. His wife’s role was that of “abetment”. Kumar’s father, a co-accused, expired during the pendency of trial.
“The alleged disproportionate assets include numerous bank accounts which had significant deposits and withdrawals during the check period, massive investment in shares, and considerable immovable properties. The percentage of disproportionate assets to the known sources of income of Sanjiv Kumar was thus worked out at 570%, as alleged in the charge sheet,” reads the order accessed by ET.