The Delhi High Court has allowed the CBI to retain the documents seized during a raid on the office of senior IAS officer Rajendra Kumar, Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, in a corruption case on December 15, 2015.
“The Delhi government’s plea for return of the documents “is neither justifiable nor desirable” as this “could hamper” the CBI investigation which was at the initial stage” as ruled out by the Justice PS Teji while hearing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the Government of NCT of Delhi for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
The Delhi government “has no connection with the accusation against accused Rajendra Kumar”, Kumar is facing corruption charges for allegedly favouring some private companies in the award of contracts, the HC pointed out.
CBI Special Judge AK Jain had directed the CBI on January 20 to return the seized documents to the Delhi government, prompting the investigation agency to move the HC.
While observing that the Section 93 Cr.P.C. is meant to facilitate the investigation and is not meant to over shadow the scope of investigation and the details of documents given in the application or annexure thereto does not curtail the scope of investigation”, the HC pointed out several lapses and contradictions on the part of trial court.
First, the trial court passed the order without hearing CBI’s plea for retaining the files.
Second, the trial judge should not have gone into the relevance of the seized documents which could be done only after the filing of the chargesheet whereas the present case was still under investigation.
Third, “the relevancy is to be examined by the Investigating Officer and not by the Court and the same tantamount to interference in the investigation conducted by the IO,”;
Fourth, the HC said the trial judge should not have questioned the lodging of the FIR without conducting any preliminary inquiry. Even the Delhi government did not raise this point while seeking return of the documents, it noted.“Such observations may even affect the ultimate judgment to be passed at the finality of the trial,”;
Fifth, the HC found fault with the trial judge’s remark that the CBI could re-seize the returned documents, if necessary at a later stage. What was the point in first returning and then seizing it again, particularly because of CBI’s contention that the files had several “pencil entries” which could be erased to change the character of the documents, the HC asked.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT PST10022016CRLMM2572016
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS