Mumbai Court Orders Further Probe In INS Vikrant Fund Case Against Somaiya

Kirit Somaiya

A local court in Mumbai has rejected the closure of a cheating case against BJP leader Kirit Somaiya and his son, citing the need for further investigation.

The case involves allegations that the Somaiyas misused funds collected to save the decommissioned naval aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant.

On August 8, the magistrate’s court refused to accept the closure report submitted by the Mumbai police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW). Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate S.P. Shinde directed the police to continue investigating, stating that it is unclear what was done with the collected funds. The court pointed out that the police had not provided any evidence showing that the money was deposited with the Maharashtra governor’s office or the government.

The court emphasized that although the accused had collected funds, the investigation did not clarify what was done with the money. The judge ordered the investigating officer to carry out further investigations and submit a report.

INS Vikrant, commissioned in 1961, played a crucial role during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971. It was decommissioned in 1997, and in 2014, the ship was sold and scrapped.

The case against the Somaiyas was filed in April 2022 at the Trombay police station, based on a complaint from an ex-serviceman who claimed to have donated Rs 2,000 in 2013 to save the ship. The complainant alleged that Somaiya had collected over Rs 57 crore for the campaign but misappropriated the funds instead of depositing them with the Maharashtra governor’s office.

The investigation officer initially submitted a ‘C’ summary (closure report), indicating that the crime was neither proven true nor false and suggested that the complaint was based on a misunderstanding.

However, the court, after reviewing witness statements, noted that while the funds were collected, no documentation showed that the money was deposited as claimed.

The court further observed that drives to collect funds were conducted in other locations, but the investigation did not extend to recording statements from witnesses in those areas. Consequently, the court instructed the investigation officer to continue the probe and report back.