Court rejects discharge plea of Aarey Milk Colony CEO in corruption case

MUMBAI: A court rejected Aarey CEO Nathu Rathod's plea to dismiss bribery charges, citing strong evidence of his alleged corruption and asset discrepancies.

MUMBAI: A special court under the Prevention of Corruption Act rejected the discharge plea of Aarey Milk Colony chief executive officer (CEO), Nathu Vithhal Rathod on Tuesday. He was booked by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for allegedly amassing total assets worth ₹3.4 crore, which is alleged to be 555% more than his known source of income. The inquiry against Rathod began based on a complaint filed by an Aarey Colony resident to ACB, alleging that the CEO had demanded a bribe from him for granting permission to carry out repairs in his house. When the resident filed a complaint against the CEO, the ACB opened an inquiry against him, suspecting that he might have amassed illegitimate assets during his service.

Court rejects discharge plea of Aarey Milk Colony CEO in corruption case

Rathod was arrested in May 2021 along with his aide, Arvind Tribhuvam Tiwari, and ₹3.4 crore in cash was seized from the former’s bungalow at the Aarey milk colony. He directed the complainant to meet his aide, Tiwari, for permission to carry on repairs in his house, according to the prosecution. As the state owns Aarey Milk Colony, it is mandatory to secure CEO’s permission to carry out any construction or repair activities there. Tiwari allegedly asked the complainant to pay ₹50,000 and mentioned that it was for Rathod.

Rathod moved the discharge plea on the ground that there is no direct evidence to show that he demanded a bribe, submitting that the prosecution cannot rely only on the complainant’s testimony.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution maintained that there is sufficient evidence, including trap proceedings, voice recordings, and forensic tests on tainted money, proving Rathod’s role.

The court observed that the charge sheet contained several material pieces of evidence, including audio and video recordings of conversations demanding the bribe, and the recovery of ₹3.46 crore from Rathod, which was disproportionate to his income.

“The applicant’s argument that he never directly communicated with the complainant does not absolve him of liability,” observed special sessions judge, SE Bangar, adding, “Given the seriousness of the allegations, the position of authority held by the applicant, and the corroborative evidence linking him to the offence, the court finds that prima facie case is made out for trial.”

The court observed that the complainant’s statement and the evidence in the charge sheet established the demand for a bribe. “The accused’s defence that there is no direct evidence is a matter of trial and cannot be considered at the discharge stage”, added the court. The court held that considering the totality of circumstances, the evidence available, and the settled position of law, Rathod is not entitled to be discharged at this stage of the trial.