New Delhi: Six years after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) began investigating former Delhi PWD minister Satyendar Jain over corruption allegations, a Delhi court on Monday accepted a closure report filed by the agency in the matter.Special judge Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts said that no incriminating evidence was found despite several years of investigation, adding that “further proceedings would serve no useful purpose”.The case dates back to 2019 when an FIR was registered against Jain, then the PWD minister, and other PWD officials, based on a complaint from the Delhi government’s Directorate of Vigilance.The complaint alleged that Jain along with his department officials had hired consultants in violation of regular hiring practices and breached financial regulations.However, after four years of investigation, the CBI found no evidence to support the charges levelled against Jain under the Prevention of Corruption (POC) Act, 1988. The central agency was also unable to find criminality or evidence of personal gain, bribery, or any criminal intent or violation of financial rules, LiveLaw reported.“Not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rules warrants invoking the POC Act. There must be at least some material to justify applying the provisions of the POC Act. Mere neglect of duty or improper exercise of duty alone may not constitute a violation under the POC Act,” the court said.“When the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC Act, 1988, further proceedings would serve no useful purpose,” it added.The court while accepting the closure report said that suspicion cannot replace proof and that charging someone on mere suspicion is not enough.“The allegations, as presented, and the factual background are not sufficient to warrant further investigation or to initiate proceedings. The law clearly states that suspicion cannot replace proof. It is also worth noting that, even to charge someone, mere suspicion is not enough; at least strong suspicion would be necessary to proceed,” the court said.The judge added that “if any fresh material is received against anyone, CBI would be at liberty to investigate the matter further”