Mumbai court closes Central Library corruption case against Maharashtra minister Chhagan Bhujbal

A Mumbai court on Thursday discharged Maharashtra minister Chhagan Bhujbal in the Kalina Central Library scam case [Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. State of Maharashtra]

The order by the special Anti-Corruption Bureau court in Mumbai ends Bhujbal’s trial for alleged corruption and cheating related to the construction project. 

The prosecution had alleged that Bhujbal misused his official position as the Public Works Department Minister. 

They claimed he engineered a criminal conspiracy to favor a private developer, India Bulls Real Estate Ltd, by awarding them the library construction contract on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis.

Investigators further alleged that Bhujbal received a bribe of ₹2.5 crore through his welfare foundation disguised as corporate sponsorship.

Special Judge Mahesh K Jadhav found no sufficient ground to proceed against the senior politician under the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Indian Penal Code.

The special judge rejected the prosecution's theory of ‘invisible support’ allegedly provided by the minister to his subordinate officers. The court reasoned that criminal conspiracy required solid circumstantial evidence rather than mere assumptions. 

“An administrative decision may subsequently be found to be erroneous, financially disadvantageous or even procedurally irregular. Criminal liability, however, requires the additional element of the particular accused's participation with the requisite intention or knowledge. The prosecution material in the present case does not supply that additional element against applicant,” the judge stated.

The prosecution previously failed to sustain charges against two subordinate PWD officers in the same case. Those officers were discharged in 2021 by the predecessor court.

The judge concluded that the alleged illegal gratification was received as charitable sponsorship through proper banking channels.

“The mere fact of receipt of money by a Foundation associated with a public servant cannot by itself establish the offence under Section 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct leading to pecuniary advantage),” the judge observed. 

He added that the alleged ‘modus operandi’ and the alleged ‘invisible support’ were matters of inference and without any evidence and did not constitute any conspiracy. 

“In the present case, the links are either unsupported or contradicted by documents and statements forming part of the prosecution material itself,” the judge concluded.