Patra Chawl case: ED appears to have availed pick and choose strategy with the witness too, says court

The Special PMLA court which granted bail to Sanjay Raut and his close aide Pravin Raut on Wednesday, saying their arrest was illegal and the Enforcement Directorate has availed a pick and chose strategy, has raised questions about two star witnessesSwapna Patkar and Chandan Kelekar. The court said Patkar, once a close family friend of Raut, should also have been made an accused. She has claimed that Sanjay Raut purchased properties in his wifes name in Alibaug with the proceeds of crime generated through the R 1,034-crore Patra Chawl scam. The court said the statement of Patkar who had also claimed that Raut had been threatening her to take back her statement given to ED. An FIR against Raut regarding this was registered at Vakola police station before his arrest by ED on July 31. Statements varied The court noted that ED recorded Patkars statement five times. In her first statement recorded in September 2019, she had claimed that she paid Rs 50 lakh to Sanjay Raut for the registration of a plot in Alibaug. The court noted that she specifically mentioned that she was not aware of the market value of the property, but it might be around R10 crore. She said that she had never met the land owner and all negotiations were done by her husband Sujit Patkar and Sanjay Raut. She only went to sign at the Registration Office. In her third statement recorded in December 2021, she said that Sujit Patkar was coordinating with all the land owners for cash. He was handling cash on behalf of Sanjay Raut. The court noted that in one of questions asked by the ED about the sources of money to her husband, she said that only he could explain, which deviated from her earlier statement wherein she states that Sujit Patkar was handling cash on behalf of Sanjay Raut, the court said. Also Read: Patra Chawl case: Arrest of Sanjay Raut illegal, says PMLA court The court said the EDs case is that monies received by Sanjay Raut and his wife Varsha were invested in land at Kihim, Alibaug. For that Sanjay Raut allegedly threatened the land owners and compelled them to sell their land/plots to him and Sujit Patkar. Their contention is based on the statements of witnesses including Swapna Patkar. She had stated that when she met land owner Shridhar Edekar, he told her he was threatened to sell his land. Therefore, prima facie it is clear that it is not her first hand knowledge of this fact, but based on hearsay. ‘ED knows We are constrained to note that ASG Mr Anil Singh [prosecution lawyer] while arguing the case, vehemently referred the word Whosoever in Sec.3 of the PMLA Act, and contended how the case of Sanjay Raut falls under the said caption having dealt with Proceeds of Crime [POC]. If the same parameter is applied to the case of Swapna Patkar, she, as the recipient of alleged POC and purchased land/plot for herself and her husband at the instance of Sanjay Raut, would be equally liable under Sec.3 of the PML Act. Astonishingly regarding her also, the ED appears to have availed pick and choose strategy for the reasons best known to them. Prima facie it is evident that ED had done the same with her as they did with Rakesh and Sarang Wadhawan, and allowed Swapna Patkar to go scot¬free, for reasons best known to the ED, the court said in its order in the Patra Chawl case. The court has said that there are various contradictions in Patkars statements which were being ignored by ED. The order also points to contradictions in Sujit Patkars statements. The court noted that ED framed several questions to the Patkars to ensure that they took the name of Sanjay Raut, so somewhere he was involved in cash transactions for the registration of the properties. As per the bail order of Sanjay Raut, the court said that the ED case is that the properties in Alibaug were purchased by Sanjay Raut below market rate by threatening the sellers. However, the court, through the statement of sellers, noticed that the plots were purchased long ago at the prevailing market rate. We have also noted how the ED has not arraigned Swapna Patkar as accused nor arrested her when their own allegations in the complaint and materials available through her statements prima-facie demonstrate that she had dealt with POC with alleged knowledge thereof, the court said. What meetings? About prime witness Chandan Kelekar, who was the architect of the project, the court said its very strange that ED has relied on a private witness who claimed two important meetings were held by the then Union home agriculture minister and the then chief minister of Maharashtra in 2007. These meetings in which Sanjay Raut was present, were to discuss Patra Chawl redevelopment, after which he was allegedly involved with the project. The court said that all this prima facie demonstrates that statement of Chandan Kelekar is the sole basis on which Sanjay Raut is connected and fastened to the Siddharth Nagar Project (where Patra Chawl is). Questioning further EDs reliance on Kelekar, the court said that after careful examination of whole documents and statements it is prima facie evident that Chandan Kelekar, who is not a government official, but allegedly participated in those meetings, states about them with minute details out of his photographic memory. The ED has not recorded statements of the MHADA and government officers present in the said meetings. There is no official record, which is bound to be preserved by the office of the Chief Minister regarding the suggestions given by Vilasrao Deshmukh, the then Chief Minister, of the said meetings as stated by Chandan Kelekar, the court order reads further. The court also found it very strange that while ED recorded Kelekars first statement in September 2021, he didnt say a word about the two meetings until after the first charge sheet was filed against Pravin Raut.