NEW DELHI: A Delhi court, while hearing a Rs 2,435 crore bank fraud case, criticised the CBI, stating that the agency wants to put a "veil of secrecy" so that the truth never comes out and remains embedded in the case file.
The court of Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal, in its order dated 10 February, noted that, prima facie, the main and supplementary charge sheets revealed that the investigation was not properly conducted by the CBI and was done in a "perfunctory and casual manner."
The court stated, "It appears from the aforementioned circumstances that the investigating agency has something material to conceal from the Court, to which they want to put a veil of secrecy, so that truth should never come out and see the light of the day and remains embedded in the files, i.e., the crime file."
The case is based on a complaint from the State Bank of India (SBI), which had an exposure of 12.81% in the default amount of Rs 2,435 crore, on behalf of a consortium of 11 other lender banks, including Yes Bank, which has the second-highest exposure at 11.75%.
The court also stated that whatever investigations are carried out by any investigating agency after the registration of the FIR must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The court mentioned that without the said reports, it would be handicapped and unable to form an opinion as to whether further investigations should be conducted or ordered in the case, and what important aspects may have been overlooked by the CBI.
Further, the court said that any concealment or non-production of the crime file would only enhance the suspicion that the investigating agency is probably trying to blot out something from the court, especially when the matter concerns fraud and wrongful loss of public money amounting to Rs 2,435 crore.
"Moreso, in the present case, which is an economic offence(s) of huge magnitude, impinging upon the honest taxpayers of the country and the State Exchequer, the non-production of the crime files may lead to a prima facie inference that the investigating agency is concealing something important from the Court, which they do not probably want should come out in the open, which itself per se makes out the existence of unusual and extraordinary circumstances, which warrants perusal of the crime file by the court," the court said.
Earlier, on 3 February, the court directed the central agency to produce all the crime files of the case, which was not complied with. The court sought the files to examine the reports submitted by the prosecution containing the legal opinion in the matter.
The court took note of the fact that after the passing of the 3 February order, the investigating agency had sufficient time to examine the order and challenge it if they so desired. Terming the non-compliance of the aforementioned order an act of "clear-cut defiance and recalcitrance" on the part of the CBI/investigating agency, the court said this subtly conveys that the CBI does not care to obey court orders, which is a matter of grave concern.
"Same is also contrary to the spirit of Article 21 of The Constitution of India, which ensures fair investigations and consequent fair trial," said the court.
The court then directed the head of the concerned department to ensure that the investigating officer of the case appears with the crime file on 21 February, the next date of hearing, without fail.
Start a Conversation
Post comment