Rupnagar, Nov 26 (UNI) Three more prosecution witnesses in the disproportionate assets case against Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and others deposed in the court of Rupnagar Special Judge G S Saran today.
With this, a total of 44 prosecution witnesses have deposed in the case so far.
The first prosecution witness, Senior Finance Manager of Som Dutt Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, Vijay Kishore Mathur stated that flat No 502 and 502-A, Narain Manjil, 23 Barakhamba road, New Delhi were constructed by Som Dutt Builders. Originally, these flats were booked by Munjal Leasing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, which had transferred the flats in the name of Jagdeep Singh Nakai in May 1997 and he further transferred these in the name of Sukhbir Singh Badal in March 1998.
Mr Mathur also produced the concerned record in the court today.
The second prosecution witness PWD (B&R), Fatehgarh Sahib, XEN Amandeep Singh Brar stated that in the year 2003 he was posted as SDO PWD (B&R) construction sub division Kharar. On July 13, 2003 he along with XEN PWD (Vigilance Bureau) J S Nanda, XEN PWD (B&R) K S Bhinder, SDO Sukhdeep Singh Dhindsa and other members had visited Orbit Resort, Gurgaon.
Mr Brar stated that their team had made the measurement and assessment of that building and the assessment report was prepared under the supervision of XEN, Mr Nanda and he (Brar) had also signed as member of the team.
Mr Brar further told the court that on July 17, 2003 the team had gone to Balasar Farm in Haryana. There videography and photography was done and measurements were taken and this task was completed by July 18. The search of Balasar farm was also conducted at that time but nothing incrimating was recovered from there and its search memo was prepared, which was also signed by him as attesting witness, he stated.
However, Mr Brar told the court that he did not visit these properties in November, 2003. He said that he was summoned to the office of the Vigilance Bureau in Chandigarh along with other officers of the inspection team and his signatures were taken on the reports pertaining to these properties.
However the reports on which he put his signatures were different from those prepared by the inspection team, he claimed in the court.
On the courts questions, Mr Brar said that he did not object to the signing of the report provided its text was shown to him. ''I did not make any complaint to any senior government authority that my signatures had been obtained without showing the report to me'', he claimed in the court.