The federal agency has claimed that Tuteja, a 2003 batch IAS officer, is the “chief architect” of this scandal. The agency had registered a fresh FIR in connection with the liquor scandal on April 9 based on an existing FIR registered by the Chhattisgarh Economic Offences Wing (EOW).
The fresh FIR was filed after the Supreme Court recently quashed ED’s earlier FIR that was based on an Income-Tax Department complaint.
The agency claimed that Tuteja was summoned on Saturday to record his statement but he remained “elusive and uncooperative” throughout the questioning.
People in the know said that ED’s probe has revealed that Tuteja was in receipt of the proceeds of crime amounting to Rs 14.41 crore and was the “master mind” of the liquor scandal. “Though officially he was not part of the excise department of Chhattisgarh yet he was constantly involved in decisions pertaining to the Excise Department.
He was also found discussing excise matters with other co-accused in the matter,” said a senior official on condition of anonymity. Tuteja was arrested at around 3:54 am.Private liquor shops are not allowed to operate in Chhattisgarh. All liquor shops are run by state government-run body M/s CSMCL {Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited) which is the only entity with the responsibility to requisition and purchase liquor from the Distillers and IMFL suppliers.The procured liquor is then sold through approximately 800 state-run shops across Chhattisgarh. These shops are run by out-sourced manpower suppliers and the cash generated through sale of liquor at these shops is collected through outsourced cash collection agencies.
Elaborating on the modus operandi of the case, people quoted above said that “complicit officers” were posted at important positions and there was “political backing to avoid any backlash”.
The ED’s investigation has revealed that “consequently, a corrupt syndicate got formed which made deliberate policy changes and tapped this department to extract maximum bribes and commission at the expense of the state exchequer and the common public”.
The investigation has found that “such was the level of corruption that in order to prevent pilferage of the loot by insiders of the syndicate and to properly account for it, the accused persons maintained detailed logs/excel sheets of the proceeds of corruption.
They themselves gave different nomenclatures to the commissions depending on the source from where it was originating”.
