CBI was on Tuesday pulled up by a Delhi court for not properly probing the "crucial aspects" regarding the alleged roles of government officials in allocating coal blocks to Navbharat Power Pvt Ltd which was chargesheeted in the case along with its two top executives.
The court observed that it was not inclined to summon the accused -- Navbharat Power Pvt Ltd, its Managing Director and Vice-Chairman Harishchandra Prasad and its Chairman P Trivikrama Prasad -- at this stage as "piecemeal cognisance" of the charge sheet cannot be taken.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Gaurav Rao also observed that taking cognisance of CBI's charge sheet or summoning the accused when the probe was still pending will be nothing "short of mockery".
The court directed the CBI's investigating officer (IO) to conclude the probe by August 30, the next date of hearing, and file a detailed report before it by then.
"Accordingly, in view of my above observations, IO of the case is directed to expedite the investigation as taking cognisance/summoning of the accused persons at this stage when the investigation is still pending on material aspects will be nothing short of mockery.
"Piecemeal cognisance cannot be taken more so when crucial aspect of the investigation still remains and important chain/ link of the conspiracy remains to be unearthed," the ACMM said.
The court also pulled up the CBI's IO saying either he was "deliberately hesitant" to probe the case in terms of Central Vigilance Commission's (CVC) reference or he was "unaware of basic aspects of investigation despite immense experience and expertise at his disposal which he ought to have on account of his tenure in the service/department."
The court's observation came while dealing a case in which Navbharat Power Pvt Ltd (NPPL) and its officials were chargesheeted by CBI for offences under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC for allegedly misrepresenting facts, including inflated net worth, to acquire coal blocks.
When the families of the harassed women used to seek justice, he used to get raids by income tax department conducted to silence them and lodged a number of false cases against them, the woman alleged, adding Bajaj has filed 35 cases against her and her family members.
The court said laws meant to protect women from any kind of harassment, torture, fraud, exploitation and destitution cannot be rendered useless and ineffective by men who are socially and financially influential. "It is said 'once bitten, twice shy' but the case of accused Bajaj is a unique exception.
Three marriages in a row and all in shambles. It is this which makes me believe that perhaps not all is well with the accused, an educated well- settled gentleman duly aware of the law of this land.
"What is it that made him to madly rush into a third relationship with a young lady with whom he interacted on a matrimonial site by concealing his marital status," it said.
A case was registered against Bajaj at Bharat Nagar Police Station here and he was arrested on December 16, 2009 and granted bail by the court on January 4, 2010. Bajaj, in his defence, claimed he never harassed or threatened the woman who had filed the case against her in conspiracy with his former wife to extract money from him.
The court noted that there was an allegation of tampering of evidence and extending threats to witnesses against the man and said any attempt by the accused, direct or indirect, to pressurize any of the witnesses including his ex wife, tantamounts to interference in administration of justice.
It also said what the accused has done was both a legal and moral wrong and cannot be condoned and the miseries of the woman did not end here and pursuant to her complaint against him, she has been attacked with counter litigations.
"When I think about the complainant, I feel dismayed to see what her life has come to. A young woman who had her dreams of a good marriage shattered within days of her marriage when she realized that the person whom she had trusted and married was already into an existing matrimonial relationship with another and there existed a big question mark on the legality of her own marriage with the accused. It must have been completely shattering and rude shock for her," the judge said.
Comments
0 comment