Chandigarh: The much-hyped three reports constituted on the directions of Punjab and Haryana High, has not inducted any Punjab Police personnel for their alleged links with drug mafia.
The three reports recently submitted to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann for further course of action into it.
Pertinently, the SIT reports had given clean chit to sacked Punjab Police inspector Inderjit Singh and former Moga SSP Raj Jit Singh in the drugs case. There is no evidence of any police officer being paid for smuggling, the report states. Apart from this, the name of any big smuggler was not mentioned in the investigation report.
The report also mentioned that the former SSP’s property had manifold after 2012 and during investigation, it states that he reportedly received these properties as gifts and it could further be investigated.
The inquiry report states that Inderjit Singh was posted as SHO/CIA incharge in different districts from 1993 to 2017. The inquiry report states that there should be a high-level inquiry into his posting and out-of-turn promotion from time to time.
According to the information, the report of the SIT, which is more than 30 pages, states that the properties of dismissed inspector Indrajit should be investigated.
Meanwhile, Jalandhar-based Bath Castle owner Pavittar Singh Uppal was also given a clean chit. The Income Tax Department also recently investigated his asserts on the inputs of the SIT.
The SIT constitution to probe Punjab Police-drug mafia nexus
On December 15, 2017, the High Court had ordered the formation of a three-member SIT against the police officers involved in the drug racket. The then DGP (HRD) Siddharth Chattopadhyay, ADGP Director Bureau of Investigation Prabodh Kumar and IGP ATS Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh were made part of the SIT.
The SIT submitted the report directly to the High Court. The report was submitted in a sealed cover on February 1, 2018, March 15, 2018 and May 8, 2018. Apart from this, Siddharth Chattopadhyay signed alone and submitted a separate report directly to the High Court.
This fourth report has not been opened by the High Court and has kept it under consideration.