ACB awaits CM’s nod

Mumbai: The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) has completed its probe against former minister Eknath Khadse in the Pune MIDC land purchase case. They are now waiting for a nod from Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis to go ahead against Mr Khadse, sources in the agency claimed. The ACB probe revealed that Mr Khadse had allegedly misused his power as a minister, sources claimed. The income tax department too has conducted an inquiry against the family.

Speaking about the ACB probe, Mr Khadse said on Wedneday, “The CM should take a decision on the charges levelled against me immediately. I am ready to go to jail if I have done anything wrong.” He added, “Now I am fed up by the treatment meted out to me by the state government.

According to sources, the Pune ACB has completed the probe and sent a report to the ACB additional director, General Vivek Phansalkar. The complainants, Mr Hemant Gavande and Ms Anjali Damania, have demanded that the ACB file a chargesheet against him.

Ms Damania had furnished documents to prove that Mr Khadse had allegedly conducted a meeting and Rs 25 lakh was sent from each of his IDBI and State Bank of India accounts to his wife, Mandakini Khadse. So he was aware of the land purchase.  However, the ACB chief told The Asian Age, “The investigation is still incomplete and we can’t reveal details. We have not reached  the chargesheet stage yet.”

Mr Khadse found himself in a controversy on account of the MIDC land purchase by his family at a cheap rate. The Bharatiya Janata Party asked him to resign and he has been out of the cabinet for 20 months.

The FIR was registered by Pune ACB on April 10, 2017, when Pune-based activist, Mr Gavande filed a PIL in the Bombay high court. Activist Damania also filed complaints against Mr Khadse regarding his disproportionate assets case with the ACB and demanded that the CM take action against him. But the FIR in Pune is limited only to the land purchase in Bhosari. His wife, Mandakini and son-in-law Girish Chaudhuri had purchased MIDC acquired land. But his contention is that acquisition proceedings lapsed and compensation was never given. So the land was free hold. He was not aware of the purchase.