Delhi HC directs criminal action against 6 CBI officers over ‘false’ court statement
text_fields
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the initiation of criminal complaint proceedings against six CBI officers over an allegedly false statement made before the court regarding correspondence with the administrative ministry in a case involving IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
Justice Madhu Jain passed the order while allowing Aggarwal’s criminal appeal against a Special Judge’s decision refusing to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC. The High Court directed the Special Judge to file a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md Azad for alleged offences under Sections 191, 193 and 209 of the IPC.
The case relates to a disproportionate assets prosecution against Aggarwal under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the High Court invalidated the prosecution sanction in January 2016, the Special Judge discharged him in March. The CBI considered challenging the decision in the Supreme Court, but the Law Ministry advised on June 8 that there appeared to be no reasonable ground for pursuing the matter. The advice reached the CBI through DoPT on July 1.
On August 2, the CBI opposed Aggarwal’s request for seized documents, stating that correspondence with the administrative ministry regarding further legal action was underway. Aggarwal alleged this was false, as the CBI had not yet sent its proposal.
The High Court found that the CBI forwarded a proposal to DoPT only on August 8. It also examined successive drafts of the reply, noting that a statement saying DoPT had rejected the proposal to file an SLP was deleted and replaced with a handwritten claim that correspondence was underway.
The court prima facie attributed the alteration to Vineet Vinayak and found Sushil Dewan incorporated it into the final reply. It also noted the involvement of the other four officers in preparing, vetting, processing, and approving the response.
The court held that an internal proposal could not be presented as ongoing correspondence and said the disputed statement could have influenced the court’s decision on retaining Aggarwal’s documents.
It set aside the Special Judge’s order and directed that the complaint be sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks. The Magistrate was directed to proceed independently and avoid parallel proceedings over the same allegations.
With IANS inputs