New Delhi: Delhi Police has failed to get any "clue of the culprits" who were involved in the case relating to the controversial CD, containing purported telephonic talks among senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and politicians Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh.
In an untraced report filed before a magisterial court, the Special Cell of Delhi Police said, "Sincere efforts were made to trace...Original recording and the person/(s) who might have edited/circulated the same to achieve some vested interest but it could not be known."
"The case has been investigated throughly from all angles. In spite of best efforts, there is no clue of the culprits," the police said in its 18-page report which has been fixed for consideration by the court for September 20.
The police, in July 2011, had filed a report in the court seeking to close the case but the magistrate had rejected its plea and had directed the agency to expeditiously probe the motive behind creation of the controversial CD.
The magisterial court had rejected the closure report and ordered the police to conduct an "expeditious" probe into the motive behind creating the CD, wondering if it was aimed at making a Supreme Court judge quit the bench which was then hearing a plea for CBI probe into 2G spectrum allocation case.
However, after probing the case, the police has now filed an untraced report saying, "from the investigation carried out so far, keeping in view the forensic reports and presumption of complainant Shanti Bhushan it may be concluded that controversial CDs in question which were circulated in media and sent to the complainant and Supreme Court of India, are probably the copies of an edited CD prepared by someone..."
The police said it would not be correct to proceed against anyone on the basis of presumption and without any substantial evidence.
"Though Shanti Bhushan, on the basis of his inference and imagination, is suspecting the role of Amar Singh behind editing and circulation of the alleged CDs, which has been categorically denied by Amar Singh.
"It is not correct to proceed against anyone only on the basis of presumptions and without any substantial and corroborative evidence," the special cell said.