Justice Yogesh Khanna of Delhi High Court, on Friday, issued a notice, rejecting BJP MP Maneka Gandhi’s plea, and ordered CBI for further investigation in the alleged corruption case against her and two others. The court also stayed the special court’s February 4 order which did extend the agency to furnish substantial material related to the case for her further prosecution.
By: Rocky Das, Kingston Law College
The CBI lodged one FIR on 17.8.2006 under Section 120B and Section 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Miss Gandhi and two others and conducted an investigation and gave a final report u/s 173(2) CRPC on 30.12.2008 to the pursuance of the closure of the case. In a counter-affidavit to the final report, Miss Gandhi filed a petition stating that she has been targeted misfortunately with foul political propaganda and all the allegations made against her during her reign as Union Minister Of State (Independent Charge) Social Justice and Empowerment in the year 1998 to 2001 are completely false and unacceptable.
The then special judge of CBI of Patiala House Court observed the final closure report made by CBI and directed the CBI to reinvestigate the case finding the closure report being merely unsatisfactory.
The CBI further reinvestigated the case and submitted its closure report u/s 173(8) CRPC on 29.05.2015 stating that there is no marginal evidence against the petitioner for proving her as a culprit and requested the CBI judge to close the case.
The verdict of the special judge regarding the closing of the case was later challenged in the Delhi high court.
With the stated vide order dated 04.02.2020, the court of Sh. A.K. Kuhar, Special Judge CBI (MP/MLA Cases), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi directed the CBI to reinvestigate the case despite the closure report furnished by the CBI without any valid parameters and also illegally directed the CBI to produce the matter before sanctioning authority for sanctioning the grant against the petitioner.
Such directions are considered as a violation of para 34 and 35 of the impugned order and its illegal and unstainable in the eye of the supreme court of India.
“In view of the aforesaid settled propositions of law, the directions passed by the Ld. Trial Court clearly impede, impinge and transgress into the independent zone and domain of the sanctioning authority and the said directions indisputably interfere and cause undue influence, in the mind and conscience of the sanctioning authority, which authority undeniably would, therefore, infer that trial court wants it to grant the sanction in the factual narrative of the case,” it is argued.
The petitioner further filed the petition seeking affirmative assistance from the high court in the above-said case matter as not only the trial court directed illegally the CBI to conduct a further investigation but also violating the rules sectioned to the sanctioned authority without any valid parameters. It was being mentioned in the petition that it is a clear case of raging out false political propaganda to defame the petitioner to get the upper hand leverage in the field of politics.