HC directs State to file reply in Sanap case

Mumbai, July 12 (UNI) The Bombay High Court today directed the state to file a reply within three weeks indicating the status of the Central Intelligence Department inquiry against IPS officer Dr Madhav Sanap who allegedly collected funds for a non-governmental organisation using police machinery.

A division bench comprising justices R M Lodha and D Y Chandrachud also directed the state to file affidavit submitting details of when was the investigation likely to conclude. Also, the status of the disciplinary inquiry being conducted against Dr Sanap by the police department had to be furnished.

The court also sought the information whether the Charity Commissioner had appointed an auditor. If yes, then the amount of time their inquiry would take to find the details of the whereabouts of the Rs 2.27 crore handed over to Dr Sanap.

The High Court's directives have come in the wake of a PIL filed by P Ingole who has alleged that in the year 2004, Dr Sanap, who was then the Superintendent of Police (Pune Rural), had organised two musical programmes in Pune, the funds from which were not accounted.

The programmes, ''Natrangi Naar'' and ''Awaaz Ki Duniya'', were organised and crores of rupees were collected and invested in various nationalised banks as fixed deposits, according to the PIL.

The same were later credited to the accounts of the NGO called ''Dhyas Foundation Trust'' of which Dr Sanap was the chief trustee, the petitioner alleged.

The petitioner submitted that while a person in government office needs permission to start a charitable trust, Dr Sanap took the permission after setting up the Dhyas Foundation. Also, the monies of the trust were not accounted for. The petitioner also alleged that under the guise of calling weekly crime meetings, Dr Sanap used to discuss various financial aspects of these programmes.

Following this petition, the High Court had earlier asked the State Government to constitute an inquiry committee which had found the IPS officer guilty. The court had also directed the State Government to consult the Home Department on whether the offence should be treated with minor or major penalty and the Home Department had confirmed that it may be treated with major penalty.

The court had also directed the State Government to take over the trust run by Dr Sanap.

UNI ARM MAZ RL GC1919