Delhi High Court Directs Criminal Complaint Against Six CBI Officials Over False Statements
Justice Madhu Jain granted the application filed by IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, and ordered the Special Judge (CBI) to file a written complaint against CBI officers Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam, and Md Azad.
The learned Special Judge is hereby directed to make a complaint in writing against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md. Azad for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 191 read with Section 193 IPC and Section 209 IPC, and to transmit the same to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment," the High Court said in its October 6 order.
The case arose from a CBI case against Aggarwal for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In January 2016, the High Court had held that the sanction for his prosecution was invalid, following which he was discharged. The CBI subsequently considered challenging that decision before the Supreme Court.
However, the Ministry of Law and Justice opined in June 2016 that there was no reasonable ground to pursue the matter further. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) communicated the opinion to the CBI in July 2016.
When Aggarwal later sought the return of documents seized during the investigation, the CBI, in its August 2, 2016 reply, stated that correspondence with the Ministry regarding further legal action was "underway."
However, the High Court found that no such correspondence was taking place. Instead, the CBI was internally considering whether to seek reconsideration and obtain further legal opinion.
It examined successive drafts of the CBI's reply and found that an earlier draft expressly recorded that the DoPT had rejected the proposal to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
That statement was subsequently deleted and replaced with a handwritten assertion that correspondence with the Ministry was underway.
The respective acts of preparing, altering, vetting, processing, approving and filing the reply, read with the knowledge disclosed by the preceding drafts and file-notings, furnish a reasonable basis for the prima facie inference that the concerned officers participated in advancing a claim which was known to be inconsistent with the existing position.
Therefore, it allowed Aggarwal's plea and directed the filing of a complaint. Senior Advocate Yashraj Singh Deora along with advocates Anupama Dhurve, and Priyesh Mohan Srivastava appeared for Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Atul Guleria with advocates Aryan Rakesh, Vivek Maurya, KM Swati and Manish represented the CBI officials.
