Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Delhi High Court heard the petition filed by two officers—Rakesh Asthana and Kumar, who are CBI Special Director and CBI DySP respectively. An FIR was registered against them on the allegations of bribery to the tune of Rs.3 crores, which they allegedly received from Sathish Babu Sana, a Hyderabad businessman, who allegedly wanted to disrupt a money laundering investigation against MoinQuereshi.
Justice NajmiVaziri had to hear the submissions from all the counsels having interest in the instant case, and therefore the verdict was reserved on December 20, 2018. Senior Advocates Amrendra Sharan and Dayan Krishnan, who appeared for the petitioners, contended that the FIR was predated and there was no sanction obtained under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for investigating a public servant. They also contended that the FIR reached the magistrate only after 52 hours when it should have reached in 24 hours. There was no demand of bribery by the CBI Special Director. Therefore, he could not be made an accused in the instant case.
ASG, Maninder Acharya agreed that the prior sanction had to be obtained under the prevention of corruption act to prosecute a public servant, but the government could not do anything in that regard as the matter was not referred to the government. Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the CBI, upheld the validity of the FIR stating that FIR had to be lodge in case of cognisable offence, and the value of evidence would be determined by the investigating officer. Thus, the petition filed by these two officers is of no significance before this Court.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal expressed that all necessary procedures and rules were complied with before registering the FIR against the two officers in dispute. Advocate MA Niyazi, appearing for Sharma, said that the case was at the nascent stage and therefore trial court was the forum to quash the FIR if it is found to be invalid, and the FIR was not filed only under the IPC or PCA which belittles the requirement of prior sanction.
The alleged bribe-giver Sathish Babu Sana did not make himself a party in the case, rather extended his co-operation by all means. Alok Verma said that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused, and therefore the petition filed was misconceived and not maintainable.
It is pertinent to note that Kumar had been arrested in a case of alleged forgery in recording the statement of Sana who had alleged to have bribed the investigation officer to evade the case involving MoinQuereshi. Sana had also lodged an FIR alleging the existence of corruption, extortion, high-handedness and serious malpractices against Asthana. Additional Superintendent of Police SS Gurm filed a similar plea to be considered as aparty in the case. The Court is yet to decide on these matters.
86540
103860
630
114
59824