
The SIT, which is investigating the Ram Temple offering theft case, has also found lapses at many levels in the compliance of the MOU between Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust and State Bank of India (SBI). The investigating agencies are now busy finding out why the prescribed provisions related to security and surveillance were not followed and whether it had any connection with the theft incident or not.
rules were not followed
According to sources, in the MOU signed between the Trust and SBI in February 2025, the joint presence of Trust and Bank officials was made mandatory during the opening of donation boxes and operation of the counting room. Dress code was also prescribed for the employees engaged in counting work, but investigation has revealed that these rules were not followed effectively.
There was also a provision in the MOU for monthly rotation of bank officers, so that the same employee is not posted in a sensitive system for a long time. However, during investigation, some employees were found working in the same system for a long time. Apart from this, the compliance of arrangements like regular and random search of employees entering and exiting the counting room, preparation of separate records of the amount of each donation box and sequential counting are also being checked.
Investigation of economic activities of the accused
Sources say that the SIT is also matching the daily count reports, slips of the amount deposited in the bank and related registers, so that possible irregularities at any level can be detected. On the other hand, the investigation has now also focused on the financial activities of the accused.
Police have sought complete details of movable and immovable properties acquired in the last three years from all the eight arrested accused. During interrogation, information related to the purchase of land, house, jewellery, vehicles and other valuables is being taken from them. The investigating agencies are trying to find out in which properties the alleged illegal money was invested by matching the declared income and expenditure of the accused.
Leave a Reply