After the FIR was registered in the case of theft of offerings in Ayodhya Ram temple, some accused have been arrested. However, now questions are being raised about the FIR itself. In fact, the names and full addresses of the fathers of the employees named in the FIR were not recorded, while all the accused have been associated with the functioning of the temple and the trust for a long time. Lack of such basic information raises many questions.
Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been included in the FIR, which indicates that the role of a government employee in the case is also under investigation. According to sources, the investigation has indicated possible collusion between bank officials and employees, but despite this no bank official has been named.
The FIR registered in the Ram Temple offering theft case is now becoming the cause of new controversies. Many such flaws have come to light in the report, due to which questions have been raised on the functioning of the Trust and the transparency of the investigation. The biggest question is that the name and complete address of the father of the employees who have been named were not even recorded in the FIR. At the same time, despite the imposition of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no bank officer or employee has been named and only an “unknown” accused has been shown.
A total of 8 people have been named in the FIR lodged by trust member Krishna Mohan. These include Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava and Ramshankar Yadav alias Tinnu. Apart from this, an unknown person has been mentioned as the ninth accused.
Experts related to the case say that all the named accused have been associated with the arrangements of the temple and trust for a long time. In such a situation, the absence of basic information like his father's name and address in the FIR raises many questions. Although this information may come to light during the investigation, questions are being raised on the working style of the Trust due to such shortcomings in the preliminary report.
Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been included in the FIR, which indicates that the role of a government employee in the case is also under investigation. According to sources, the investigation has indicated possible collusion between bank officials and employees, but despite this no bank official has been named. Keeping him as an unknown accused is also giving rise to many discussions.
The complaint given for the FIR is also written in very brief and concise words. In this, allegations of embezzlement have been made only on the basis of SIT's report and electronic evidence. Sources claim that even though the complaint was given by the Trust, every word used in it was written as per the format decided at a high level.
According to sources, even before the formation of SIT, suspicious employees were interrogated at the trust level and about Rs 3 crore were recovered on their information. It is now believed that as other accused are arrested in the case, the recovery of the alleged embezzlement amount may also increase.
At present, aspects like the structure of the FIR, incomplete description of the accused and keeping the bank officials anonymous have brought this entire episode into the center of discussion. Now all eyes are on police investigation and further action by SIT.
