The National Investigating Agency (NIA), which recently took over the case of extortion calls made to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, found no evidence in the case and wants to close the case. The special court, Mumbai, however, returned the report to the NIA over the jurisdiction issue.
As per the case registered by the NIA, on March 21, 2023, a caller who identified himself as Jayesh Pujari, had called the public relations office of Gadkari at around 10:55 am, demanding Rs10 crore. Pujari had threatened to kill the minister in a bomb blast if his demands were not fulfilled. Further, on January 14, 2023, the same man called had demanded Rs100 crore.
The case was initially registered with Nagpur police who during the investigation concluded that both the calls were made by Pujari, who was serving a life sentence in Hindalaga jail, Belagavi, Karnataka since 2013 for murder. The police hence had invoked the charges of UAPA to the case.
Union Minister Nitin Gadkari receives death threat at Delhi residence, investigation underway
As the provisions of UAPA were invoked in the case, the case was taken up by NIA on July 13, 2023. While NIA was probing the case, the Nagpur police submitted a chargesheet against the Pujari and his associate Afsar Pasha. The NIA had sought to transfer the case from the Nagpur court to the Mumbai court. But the plea was rejected by the special court in Nagpur.
NIA, however, after probing the case for over a year, submitted a closure report for want of evidence before the special court in Mumbai.
The special judge AK Lahoti observed, “The record shows that state agency proceeded with probe and filed chargesheet before the special court in Nagpur. Hence closure report should have been filed before the special court, Nagpur, where the proceedings are subjudice.”
The court further said that there cannot be two simultaneous proceedings against the accused in two different courts for the same crime number on the same facts.
The court has now ordered to return the closure report to NIA, for it to file it before the appropriate court.