SC orders trial in Ram temple donation case; SIT says Rs 2.7 crore stolen

SC clears trial of eight accused of siphoning Rs 2.7 crore in Ayodhya Ram temple donations

NEW DELHI: Five months after news broke of pilferage of donations at Ayodhya Ram temple, Supreme Court cleared trial of eight people, who figure in the chargesheet filed by the SIT for allegedly siphoning Rs 2.7 crore.

It also gave the petitioners, who had sought probe, the status of victims of crime and allowed them to assist in the trial, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.The SIT's status report informed SC that financial and forensic examination extended to cash deposits, transactions, property purchases, construction expenditure, vehicles, jewellery, other assets, and event-related spendings. "The amount of alleged embezzlement is approximately Rs 2.7 crore," the report said.On Monday, solicitor general Tushar Mehta explained to the court the process that involved scrutiny of bank accounts and acquisition of immoveable properties by the accused, as well as examination of CCTV footage that culminated in the chargesheet Sept 23.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. On the large number of petitioners who had sought an independent probe into the donation theft, the bench said the petitioners can be given the status of victims of crime, and in public interest, they can assist the prosecutor and trial court in proceedings.

One of the petitioners also sought a direction from SC for an “independent, impartial, technically competent survey/demarcation” of the land that was allotted for the temple by SC in its Nov 9, 2019, judgement.He also sought a direction to the revenue and statutory authorities to place before SC relevant records and their comparison with the site plan and actual location of the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple complex to determine if the present complex stands on the land allotted by the court.

While Mehta said it is impermissible for the petitioner to seek a virtual reopening of the judgement by a fivejudge bench, the bench said if the petitioner had any grievance about the demarcation of the land, he should approach the civil court with a civil suit.