'No criminal conspiracy was hatched': Why special court for MP/MLA cases cleared Ajit, Sunetra and Rohit Pawar in Rs 25,000-crore MSCB case

A special court for MP/MLA cases, which last month accepted the Economic Offences Wing’s (EOW) closure report in the Rs 25,000-crore Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank (MSCB) scam case involving the late Ajit Pawar, Deputy CM Sunetra Pawar, and their nephew, NCP-SP MLA Rohit Pawar, held in several instances that “no loss was caused to the bank due to allotment of loan” and concluded that “no personal wrongful gain is acquired by directors”.

It held that no criminal conspiracy was hatched by the accused.Granting relief to Rohit Pawar’s company, Baramati Agro, the court said the due legal process was followed in the 2012 auction of Kannad Sahakari Sugar Factory. The detailed 127-page common order was made available on Monday.Background of CaseThe alleged Rs 25,000-crore Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank (MSCB) scam pertains to 31 district central co-operative banks under the MSCB umbrella, mostly named after districts and headed by senior politicians.

These banks granted loans to cooperative sugar factories in violation of rules. The factories defaulted on repayment, after which MSCB auctioned their properties to recover the loan amounts.It was alleged that the auction process was manipulated to ensure that most mills were sold to the bank office-bearers’ relatives or close associates at throwaway prices, causing losses to the bank.The alleged scam came to light after activist Surinder Arora filed a PIL in the high court seeking a probe.

In 2019, police registered a case against an unnamed former CM, deputy CM, ministers, and bank directors. The case was later transferred to the Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW).Based on the EOW FIR, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) began its probe. In 2023, the ED filed its first chargesheet against Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Ltd in connection with the purchase of Jarandeshwar Sugar Co-operative Mill.

The chargesheet mentioned Ajit Pawar’s and Sunetra Pawar’s links to the company but did not name them as accused. Later, the ED filed a supplementary chargesheet naming NCP MLA Prajakt Tanpure, among others.The ED alleged cheating, misconduct, and money laundering in the auction of mills, linking suspicious transactions to Ajit Pawar, Sunetra Pawar, Shiv Sena’s Arjun Khotkar, and companies linked to NCP (SP) leaders Rohit Pawar and Tanpure.EOW’s InvestigationIn 2020, the EOW filed its first closure report. At that time, Ajit Pawar was Deputy CM in the MVA government.The ED filed a plea to intervene and oppose the closure report, which was rejected. An appeal against this is pending before the Bombay High Court.In 2022, the EOW sought to reopen the case, stating it wanted to further probe suspicious deals involving the Pawars and other transactions. The application also referred to the ED’s money laundering probe.

At the time, Ajit Pawar was the Leader of Opposition, and Eknath Shinde was leading the Sena-BJP government.On January 20, 2024, the EOW submitted a second closure report, giving a clean chit to the late Ajit Pawar, Deputy CM Sunetra Pawar, and Rohit Pawar. At that time, Ajit Pawar was Deputy CM in the Mahayuti government.Enforcement Directorate’s InvestigationThe ED’s intervention plea detailed “suspicious financial links” between politicians and four auctioned mills.In the Jarandeshwar Mill case, the ED stated that the mill was sold by MSCB for Rs 65.75 crore to Guru Commodity Pvt Ltd in 2010. Soon after, Guru Commodity leased the mill to a newly incorporated company, Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Ltd, for an annual charge of Rs 12 lakh.“The director of Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Ltd, Rajendra Ghadge, is the maternal uncle of Ajit Pawar, who was then a director of the bank. The funds utilised for purchase of the mill in the auction were mainly sourced from Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills, which in turn received Rs 20 crore from Jay Agrotech Pvt Ltd, a company in which Sunetra Pawar… is a director,” the ED said.The ED also linked Rohit Pawar’s company, Baramati Agro, to the purchase of Kannad Sugar Co-operative Mill. Rohit Pawar was named as an accused in its chargesheet.According to the ED, Hitech Engineering Corporation India, one of the co-bidders, received Rs 5 crore from Baramati Agro just before the auction. This amount was used to pay the earnest money deposit required to participate in the bidding process.“There are various materials on record indicating that the promoters (Rohit Pawar and his father) of Baramati Agro Ltd induced Hitech Engineering to participate in the bidding process to project it as a competitive one,” the ED said.Protest PetitionersMore than 50 petitioners, including Surinder Arora, social activist Anna Hazare, and several agriculturists, challenged the EOW’s closure report.They alleged criminal breach of trust, fraud, falsification of accounts, misappropriation of funds, and violations of NABARD, RBI, and SARFAESI norms. They also argued that loans were extended to units with negative net worth and that the auction process involved self-dealing by directors.The petitioners further claimed that the EOW conducted an inadequate investigation, relying heavily on earlier inquiry reports and failing to examine key witnesses.Court’s OrderOn February 27, 2026, the special court for MPs/MLAs accepted the closure report.The court also rejected the ED’s plea to intervene, noting that a similar plea against the first closure report had already been rejected and is pending appeal before the Bombay High Court.It also dismissed protest petitions filed by over 50 individuals, including Anna Hazare.Court’s FindingsIn the detailed order by Special Judge Mahesh K Jadhav, made available on March 16, the court observed:“Merely irregularity or lapses cannot be converted to the offences. There is absence of dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the accused. There is absence of dishonest or fraudulent or misappropriation of property for own use which is entrusted with the public servant.

The dishonest or fraudulent intention is missing. There is no document which is called to be a forged one.”“There is no prior meeting of minds or agreement between the directors to do an illegal action by illegal means.”“…it appears that action conducted by the authority as above are not covered within the meaning of illegality. The word illegality is different from the word irregularity. Merely because some directions of NABARD are not followed does not amount to a cognisable offence.”“No personal wrongful gain is acquired by the directors. Mens rea (intention) is totally absent.”“The evidence on record and all the audit reports… revealed that no ingredients of the offences levelled against the accused are made out.”Impact On ED caseOn March 2, 2026, MLA Rohit Pawar and several others accused in the money laundering case related to the MSCB scam moved the special court seeking discharge. The court directed the prosecution to file its reply.

The matter is scheduled for hearing on March 17.In his plea, filed through advocate Kushal Mor, Pawar stated that there was no evidence of money laundering against him and pointed to the closure of the predicate (scheduled) offence on which the ED case is based.The Supreme Court, on July 27, 2022, ruled that in the absence of a predicate offence, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot continue. A predicate offence is the foundational criminal case required to sustain a money laundering prosecution. In this case, the EOW’s FIR constitutes the scheduled offence.