Wednesday, 25 December 2013
Letter addressed to Director, CBI exposes the gross misuse of powers - Ashok Kumar Aggarwal - IRS Kindly go through the website 'Ashok Kumar Aggarwal - IRS wherein my letter addressed to Director, CBI exposes the gross misuse of powers by certain Police officers especially Neeraj Kumar former Police Commissioner having no respect for human dignity. It is pity that such police officers protect human rights and incharae of life and liberty of citizens. Also see high court order (part-1, 2 & 3) which shall again show the most filthiest language used by officers during course of investigation. Do we expect such officers to remain in service? In the name of investigation, they have licence to commit all wrongs things and yet go scot free. www.ashokaggarwal.org
Monday, 23 December 2013
World India’s global image is sinking: But should we care Corruption and rape have put a serious dent in our shiny global image. That's the conclusion of a new BBC World survey conducted by GlobesScan Inc. and the Program on International Policy Attitudes in 25 countries. Over the 8-year span that the poll has been conducted, the pollsters observes, "For the first time this year, those negative views (35%) slightly outnumber those with positive views of India (34 percent)." The other country to share this fate is China, whose ratings have plummeted to the lowest level. This has not been a good year for either the elephant or the dragon. “While China and India’s prestige was enhanced by defying the gravity of the economic downturn, they seem to be falling back to earth with slowing growth rates and a perception of widespread corruption. The scandals surrounding the treatment of women in India may also have had an impact on this year’s findings," says PIPA director Steven Kull, Director of PIPA. In India's case, this downward slide is mainly a result of shift in attitudes in North America and Western Europe. There is some irony in this. The Delhi gang rape case was hardly an exceptional instance of sexual violence in India. What made it remarkable was the unprecedented popular outrage it evoked. It led to stricter rape laws and a sustained national debate over the status of Indian women, modernity, and violence. And these modest but positive reverberations of the case have kept it in the headlines, both in India and around the world. Every rape or sexual assault case since has been covered with greater attention and detail. Yet the impact of such media interest on international opinion has been negative. We have not become more violent as a society since 2012, but we are increasingly perceived as being so. Similarly, the headline-grabbing scandals also reflect a positive development. The corruption isn't new, but the uncovering and subsequent investigation of 2G, Coalgate et al reflects a new demand for openness and accountability. The UPA response has been grudging, obstructive and slow, but the government has been forced to respond nevertheless. There will be consequences, be it in the court of law or at the ballot box next year. The past two years have finally revealed the rot hidden by the glossy India rising image. And this is a good thing for our nation, but not apparently for our global image. The first 20 years of liberalisation were hailed as a revolution. Recent years have revealed that this much touted revolution has been in great part cosmetic. The medieval mindset, political corruption, crony capitalism remain entrenched despite a dramatically -- and deceptively -- altered urban landscape of malls, McDonald's, IT jobs and cell phones. And it is this harsh reality that we are finally beginning to face and challenge. However messy, chaotic and unproductive it may look on the outside, we are a nation looking for genuine progress, unwilling to settle for the usual sops and minor fixes -- though we may disagree what that progress should look like. And right at this watershed moment, the very global image that buoyed our self-esteem is falling apart. The question is: Should we care? There is no one answer to that question. Yes, we should if it affects our economy -- if we lose out on outsourced jobs, foreign investment, tourism. No, we shouldn't if it is just a matter of what someone in New York or Frankfurt or London thinks of us, good or bad. Public opinion abroad is shaped by news coverage, which in the case of India has long been defined by broad-stroke simplified narratives embraced by the foreign press (prominent and laudable exceptions aside). 'Rising India' replaced 'Backward India' when we opened our markets to foreign investors. With slowing growth rates, it's now all about 'Regressing India' -- a country mired hopelessly in the past, unable to move forward. Hence, the plummeting poll numbers. None of these narratives are entirely untrue, but they have never come close to capturing Indian reality. Add to this homogenised reportage two other factors: one, an entrenched journalistic bias toward bad news (shared by reporters around the world); two, the limited India coverage on television and domestic print editions of international publications. Moreover, press coverage has a far greater impact on India's poll numbers than, say, that of the United States whose global image is linked directly to its foreign policy actions. The India stories aim to explain us to the domestic audience, focusing primarily on local or at best regional issues. If international coverage skews in one direction -- positive or negative -- so does international opinion. It is every bit as fickle and insubstantive as the India narratives themselves. The real lesson of the IPI survey is that foreign coverage has a disproportionate effect on our global image -- and our own self-image. We attach far too much importance to foreign publications, getting overly excited when an Indian makes the cover of Newsweek and unduly unhappy over a sharply critical opinion delivered by the Economist. We are riveted by this reflection in a faraway mirror, mistaking it for an image of ourselves. And in this, we are no different from that guy in New York.
World India’s global image is sinking: But should we care Corruption and rape have put a serious dent in our shiny global image. That's the conclusion of a new BBC World survey conducted by GlobesScan Inc. and the Program on International Policy Attitudes in 25 countries. Over the 8-year span that the poll has been conducted, the pollsters observes, "For the first time this year, those negative views (35%) slightly outnumber those with positive views of India (34 percent)." The other country to share this fate is China, whose ratings have plummeted to the lowest level. This has not been a good year for either the elephant or the dragon. “While China and India’s prestige was enhanced by defying the gravity of the economic downturn, they seem to be falling back to earth with slowing growth rates and a perception of widespread corruption. The scandals surrounding the treatment of women in India may also have had an impact on this year’s findings," says PIPA director Steven Kull, Director of PIPA. In India's case, this downward slide is mainly a result of shift in attitudes in North America and Western Europe. There is some irony in this. The Delhi gang rape case was hardly an exceptional instance of sexual violence in India. What made it remarkable was the unprecedented popular outrage it evoked. It led to stricter rape laws and a sustained national debate over the status of Indian women, modernity, and violence. And these modest but positive reverberations of the case have kept it in the headlines, both in India and around the world. Every rape or sexual assault case since has been covered with greater attention and detail. Yet the impact of such media interest on international opinion has been negative. We have not become more violent as a society since 2012, but we are increasingly perceived as being so. Similarly, the headline-grabbing scandals also reflect a positive development. The corruption isn't new, but the uncovering and subsequent investigation of 2G, Coalgate et al reflects a new demand for openness and accountability. The UPA response has been grudging, obstructive and slow, but the government has been forced to respond nevertheless. There will be consequences, be it in the court of law or at the ballot box next year. The past two years have finally revealed the rot hidden by the glossy India rising image. And this is a good thing for our nation, but not apparently for our global image. The first 20 years of liberalisation were hailed as a revolution. Recent years have revealed that this much touted revolution has been in great part cosmetic. The medieval mindset, political corruption, crony capitalism remain entrenched despite a dramatically -- and deceptively -- altered urban landscape of malls, McDonald's, IT jobs and cell phones. And it is this harsh reality that we are finally beginning to face and challenge. However messy, chaotic and unproductive it may look on the outside, we are a nation looking for genuine progress, unwilling to settle for the usual sops and minor fixes -- though we may disagree what that progress should look like. And right at this watershed moment, the very global image that buoyed our self-esteem is falling apart. The question is: Should we care? There is no one answer to that question. Yes, we should if it affects our economy -- if we lose out on outsourced jobs, foreign investment, tourism. No, we shouldn't if it is just a matter of what someone in New York or Frankfurt or London thinks of us, good or bad. Public opinion abroad is shaped by news coverage, which in the case of India has long been defined by broad-stroke simplified narratives embraced by the foreign press (prominent and laudable exceptions aside). 'Rising India' replaced 'Backward India' when we opened our markets to foreign investors. With slowing growth rates, it's now all about 'Regressing India' -- a country mired hopelessly in the past, unable to move forward. Hence, the plummeting poll numbers. None of these narratives are entirely untrue, but they have never come close to capturing Indian reality. Add to this homogenised reportage two other factors: one, an entrenched journalistic bias toward bad news (shared by reporters around the world); two, the limited India coverage on television and domestic print editions of international publications. Moreover, press coverage has a far greater impact on India's poll numbers than, say, that of the United States whose global image is linked directly to its foreign policy actions. The India stories aim to explain us to the domestic audience, focusing primarily on local or at best regional issues. If international coverage skews in one direction -- positive or negative -- so does international opinion. It is every bit as fickle and insubstantive as the India narratives themselves. The real lesson of the IPI survey is that foreign coverage has a disproportionate effect on our global image -- and our own self-image. We attach far too much importance to foreign publications, getting overly excited when an Indian makes the cover of Newsweek and unduly unhappy over a sharply critical opinion delivered by the Economist. We are riveted by this reflection in a faraway mirror, mistaking it for an image of ourselves. And in this, we are no different from that guy in New York.
World India’s global image is sinking: But should we care Corruption and rape have put a serious dent in our shiny global image. That's the conclusion of a new BBC World survey conducted by GlobesScan Inc. and the Program on International Policy Attitudes in 25 countries. Over the 8-year span that the poll has been conducted, the pollsters observes, "For the first time this year, those negative views (35%) slightly outnumber those with positive views of India (34 percent)." The other country to share this fate is China, whose ratings have plummeted to the lowest level. This has not been a good year for either the elephant or the dragon. “While China and India’s prestige was enhanced by defying the gravity of the economic downturn, they seem to be falling back to earth with slowing growth rates and a perception of widespread corruption. The scandals surrounding the treatment of women in India may also have had an impact on this year’s findings," says PIPA director Steven Kull, Director of PIPA. In India's case, this downward slide is mainly a result of shift in attitudes in North America and Western Europe. There is some irony in this. The Delhi gang rape case was hardly an exceptional instance of sexual violence in India. What made it remarkable was the unprecedented popular outrage it evoked. It led to stricter rape laws and a sustained national debate over the status of Indian women, modernity, and violence. And these modest but positive reverberations of the case have kept it in the headlines, both in India and around the world. Every rape or sexual assault case since has been covered with greater attention and detail. Yet the impact of such media interest on international opinion has been negative. We have not become more violent as a society since 2012, but we are increasingly perceived as being so. Similarly, the headline-grabbing scandals also reflect a positive development. The corruption isn't new, but the uncovering and subsequent investigation of 2G, Coalgate et al reflects a new demand for openness and accountability. The UPA response has been grudging, obstructive and slow, but the government has been forced to respond nevertheless. There will be consequences, be it in the court of law or at the ballot box next year. The past two years have finally revealed the rot hidden by the glossy India rising image. And this is a good thing for our nation, but not apparently for our global image. The first 20 years of liberalisation were hailed as a revolution. Recent years have revealed that this much touted revolution has been in great part cosmetic. The medieval mindset, political corruption, crony capitalism remain entrenched despite a dramatically -- and deceptively -- altered urban landscape of malls, McDonald's, IT jobs and cell phones. And it is this harsh reality that we are finally beginning to face and challenge. However messy, chaotic and unproductive it may look on the outside, we are a nation looking for genuine progress, unwilling to settle for the usual sops and minor fixes -- though we may disagree what that progress should look like. And right at this watershed moment, the very global image that buoyed our self-esteem is falling apart. The question is: Should we care? There is no one answer to that question. Yes, we should if it affects our economy -- if we lose out on outsourced jobs, foreign investment, tourism. No, we shouldn't if it is just a matter of what someone in New York or Frankfurt or London thinks of us, good or bad. Public opinion abroad is shaped by news coverage, which in the case of India has long been defined by broad-stroke simplified narratives embraced by the foreign press (prominent and laudable exceptions aside). 'Rising India' replaced 'Backward India' when we opened our markets to foreign investors. With slowing growth rates, it's now all about 'Regressing India' -- a country mired hopelessly in the past, unable to move forward. Hence, the plummeting poll numbers. None of these narratives are entirely untrue, but they have never come close to capturing Indian reality. Add to this homogenised reportage two other factors: one, an entrenched journalistic bias toward bad news (shared by reporters around the world); two, the limited India coverage on television and domestic print editions of international publications. Moreover, press coverage has a far greater impact on India's poll numbers than, say, that of the United States whose global image is linked directly to its foreign policy actions. The India stories aim to explain us to the domestic audience, focusing primarily on local or at best regional issues. If international coverage skews in one direction -- positive or negative -- so does international opinion. It is every bit as fickle and insubstantive as the India narratives themselves. The real lesson of the IPI survey is that foreign coverage has a disproportionate effect on our global image -- and our own self-image. We attach far too much importance to foreign publications, getting overly excited when an Indian makes the cover of Newsweek and unduly unhappy over a sharply critical opinion delivered by the Economist. We are riveted by this reflection in a faraway mirror, mistaking it for an image of ourselves. And in this, we are no different from that guy in New York.
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
Saturday, 14 December 2013
Pending case hits Neeraj Kumar's CBI race
Pending
case hits Neeraj Kumar's CBI race
NEW DELHI: The last lap
of the race for who takes over from A P Singh as the CBI chief next month
promises to be interesting, with the Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar moving
the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against being benched on grounds of a
pending court matter against him.
The CAT will
hear the matter on November 23.
Kumar, a 1976 officer of UT cadre, who had a nine-year eventful
stint with the CBI, ranked third in terms of seniority among the six names
suggested by CBI director A
P Singh for succeeding him. He had appeared a strong contender for the coveted
job before the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC)-led selection panel excluded
him from consideration because of a case pending against him in the Delhi High
Court.
So, while the names of two senior-most officers — ITBP
director-general Ranjit Sinha and National Investigation Agency (NIA) chief S C
Sinha — the exclusion of Kumar's name paved the way for inclusion of the fourth
senior-most candidate, DG (Home Guards), Uttar Pradesh, Atul in the panel.
The case against Kumar relates to a petition filed by Vijay
Agarwal, being investigated by the CBI in a disproportionate assets case along
with his brother, the controversial ex-ED official Ashok Agarwal, seeking a
direction for filing a police complaint against Kumar and another CBI officer
Vinod Kumar Pandey for criminal intimidation and illegal confinement of an
accused.
Government sources have justified the "red card"
because of the embarrassment UPA suffered when P J Thomas's appointment as
Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) was cancelled because of a pending criminal
case. "Even if the decision seemed slightly unfair on Kumar, the selection
panel feared his suitability for the CBI director's post could eventually be
challenged in the court," said a senior government official.
However, others argued that the two cases are as different as
apples and oranges. "Unlike Thomas, the case against Kumar is not that of
alleged personal corruption. The case is against the CBI", said a senior
official source, stressing that Kumar has been cleared in all the in-house
investigations conducted by the CBI. Interestingly, he got a clean chit based
on investigation by S C Sinha, who now heads the NIA.
Vijay Agarwal alleged in that they were criminally intimidated
by a CBI Inspector directly at Kumar's instance. They even claimed that after
he had intimidated them, the Inspector concerned called up Kumar in their
presence to inform him that his (Kumar's) instructions had been carried out.
Based on the complaint, Justice R C Jain of the Delhi HC on his last day on the
bench ordered a probe against Kumar. The order struck many because Justice Jain
had asked for the investigation against the senior CBI officer to be conducted
by Delhi Police's Special Cell and by an officer of a rank not below that of
ACP.
It was stayed by a two-judge bench of the High Court.
Those who feel that Kumar should not have been passed over feel
that the selection panel neither failed to take into account that vested
interests often use "motivated and mala-fide" complaints as weapons,
or that both the CrPC as well as the Delhi Police Special Establish Act which
governs the CBI seek to protect officers against such risks.
They fault the "play-it-safe" reasoning of the
selection committee also because it implies his mere inclusion in the panel
would have automatically guaranteed Kumar the leadership." It is like
saying that a decision in favour of Kumar was ordained had he stayed in contention",
said an official, arguing that the selection panel should have left for the
government to decide instead of prejudging the matter itself.
Friday, 13 December 2013
Letter addressed to Director CBI and all concerned abauthorities including Prime Minister's Office regarding his suffering
This letter discloses as to how Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director of CBI in gross misuse of his powers, physically tortured Ashok Kumar Aggarwal during police custody after arresting him illegally in a false case. Aggarwal was made naked, tortured, humiliated, slapped and beaten up by Neeraj Kumar in front of other CBI officers. Throughout police custody, Aggarwal was even instigated by Neeraj Kumar to commit suicide after grant of bail by saying repeatedly that he had spoiled Aggarwal's image through media to such an extent that every one starting hating him. This letter is an eye opener for every one who is concerned with an individual's rights of liberty and freedom.
This also demonstrates that a police officer working in CBI by misusing his powers and position can easily spoil the life of an innocent public servant. Who says CBI is a CAGED PARROT?
Such is the clout of Neeraj Kumar in corridors of powers that none of the authorities took any action on this letter.
This letter discloses as to how Neeraj Kumar, the then Joint Director of CBI in gross misuse of his powers, physically tortured Ashok Kumar Aggarwal during police custody after arresting him illegally in a false case. Aggarwal was made naked, tortured, humiliated, slapped and beaten up by Neeraj Kumar in front of other CBI officers. Throughout police custody, Aggarwal was even instigated by Neeraj Kumar to commit suicide after grant of bail by saying repeatedly that he had spoiled Aggarwal's image through media to such an extent that every one starting hating him. This letter is an eye opener for every one who is concerned with an individual's rights of liberty and freedom.
This also demonstrates that a police officer working in CBI by misusing his powers and position can easily spoil the life of an innocent public servant. Who says CBI is a CAGED PARROT?
Such is the clout of Neeraj Kumar in corridors of powers that none of the authorities took any action on this letter.
Wednesday, 11 December 2013
SC leaves Gov. red-faced; orders it to reinstate IRS officer after 13 years of suspension
Dated 30/11/2013
In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court has ordered withdrawal of the disciplinary action against former Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal thirteen years after his suspension, thus striking down government's repeated attempt to block the aggrieved officer's honorable return to service.
A bench headed by Justice B S Chauhan last week dismissed an appeal filed by the Centre which had challenged the Delhi High Court's order of September 17 last year that revoked the government's suspension order.
The Honorable apex court agreed with the contention of senior advocate Ram Jethmalani who, appearing for Aggarwal, said the suspension order was illegal and malafide.
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the government and evoked its decision to issue a fresh order of suspension after Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) had already given a green signal for Aggarwal's return to service on June 1, 2012.
Interestingly, Gov.’s last order was issued at a time when the Prime Minister was in charge of the Finance Ministry to which all IRS officers report to.
It may be recalled the High Court had upheld the CAT's order to revoke Enforcement Directorate's former Deputy Director Aggarwal's suspension, dismissing the Centre's appeal against it. In its judgment the High court said "the test to probity of a civil servant must not become a test to his patience."
The Tribunal had on July 1 last year, while ordering revocation of Aggarwal's suspension, said the 1985 batch officer, who is facing cases of disproportionate assets, cannot be kept on suspension "endlessly".
Aggarwal was suspended in 1999 and the CAT had first quashed his suspension in 2003 but the Department had in April 2003 suspended him again and it was set aside by the CAT in July this year.
The CAT had ordered revocation of Agrawal's suspension saying the Ministry had not complied with its December 16, 2011 order to convene a review committee meeting to decide if his suspension should be revoked.
- See more at: http://www.powerbuzz.in/web/news.php?newsid=4529#sthash.Z3r4Pa99.dpuf
In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court has ordered withdrawal of the disciplinary action against former Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal thirteen years after his suspension, thus striking down government's repeated attempt to block the aggrieved officer's honorable return to service.
A bench headed by Justice B S Chauhan last week dismissed an appeal filed by the Centre which had challenged the Delhi High Court's order of September 17 last year that revoked the government's suspension order.
The Honorable apex court agreed with the contention of senior advocate Ram Jethmalani who, appearing for Aggarwal, said the suspension order was illegal and malafide.
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the government and evoked its decision to issue a fresh order of suspension after Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) had already given a green signal for Aggarwal's return to service on June 1, 2012.
Interestingly, Gov.’s last order was issued at a time when the Prime Minister was in charge of the Finance Ministry to which all IRS officers report to.
It may be recalled the High Court had upheld the CAT's order to revoke Enforcement Directorate's former Deputy Director Aggarwal's suspension, dismissing the Centre's appeal against it. In its judgment the High court said "the test to probity of a civil servant must not become a test to his patience."
The Tribunal had on July 1 last year, while ordering revocation of Aggarwal's suspension, said the 1985 batch officer, who is facing cases of disproportionate assets, cannot be kept on suspension "endlessly".
Aggarwal was suspended in 1999 and the CAT had first quashed his suspension in 2003 but the Department had in April 2003 suspended him again and it was set aside by the CAT in July this year.
The CAT had ordered revocation of Agrawal's suspension saying the Ministry had not complied with its December 16, 2011 order to convene a review committee meeting to decide if his suspension should be revoked.
- See more at: http://www.powerbuzz.in/web/news.php?newsid=4529#sthash.Z3r4Pa99.dpuf
Judgment Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union of India and Ors.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union of India and Ors.Court: Supreme
Judge: B.S. CHAUHAN and S.A. BOBDE
Decided On: Nov-22-2013
Appellant: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Judgment:
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1842 OF2013Ashok Kumar Aggarwal …Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and final order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3314 of 2006 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.938 of 2001, by which the application filed by the appellant to proceed against respondent No.5 under Section 340 read with Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.’) has been dismissed.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The appellant had filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.938 of 2001 before the High Court of Delhi seeking transfer of investigation from respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to any other senior officer of Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to referred as `CBI’), as the said respondents had been abusing their investigating powers and adopted unfair and improper means in RC No.S19/E0006/99 dated 7.12.1999. B. The court made order dated 4.4.2002, on the submission of counsel for the respondent No.5 that the investigation report had been finalized in the said RC case and no further investigation was required to be done, directed the competent authority of the CBI to file an affidavit in this regard by 5th April, 2002. C. An affidavit was filed by respondent No.5 on 5.4.2002, being investigating officer, wherein it had been stated that the investigation was complete and that no further investigation was required to be done and a final report Part-1 (FR-1) was submitted by him on 11.1.2002 to the Superintendent of Police (in short `SP’). D. However, coming to know that certain witnesses had been examined by the CBI subsequent thereto, the appellant preferred an application under Section 340 r/w 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order. Hence, this appeal.
3. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that not only a statement was made, but even an affidavit had been filed by respondent No.5 before the High Court that the investigation was complete and an investigative report had been finalized by him and no further investigation was required. Therefore, if further witnesses had been examined and certain evidence had been collected, it is evident that the statement so given and affidavit filed by respondent No.5 was just to mislead the court and therefore, the court ought to have proceeded against him allowing the application filed by the appellant.
4. Per contra, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Ms. Indira Jaising, learned ASG for respondent No.1 and 2, have vehemently opposed this appeal contending that the submission made before the court and affidavit filed by respondent no.5 that investigation stood concluded, was factually correct. However, as per the procedure prescribed under the CBI manual, the investigation report submitted by the I.O. goes to the superior officers for their comments, approval and directions, and ultimately, it goes to the Director of the CBI. In case the superior authorities have some query in respect of any matter in that report of the investigating officer, they are competent to issue directions to examine a particular witness on a particular point. The investigating officer is bound to do so in order to tie the loose ends of investigation. Such examination of witness or further investigation does not amount to the statement made by the I.O. in the affidavit before the court being false or having been made deliberately and mischievously to misguide the court. As per the requirement of the procedure prescribed under the CBI manual, the I.O., even after filing such an affidavit, was bound to carry out such directions issued by the superior authorities.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC421 this Court held that nobody should be permitted to indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods in the judicial proceedings and if someone does so, it must be dealt with appropriately. In case recourse to a false plea is taken with an oblique motive, it would definitely hinder, hamper or impede the flow of justice and prevent the courts from performing their legal duties.
7. In this context, reference may be made of Section 340 under Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. under the heading of “Provisions as to Offences Affecting the Administration of Justice”. This Chapter deals with offences committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the court, or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the court and enables the court to make a complaint in respect of such offences if that court is of the view that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence. Clause (b) of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. authorizes such court to examine prima facie as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after having recorded a finding to that effect as contemplated under Section 340 (1) Cr.P.C. In such a case, the question remains as to whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offences and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take any action. Thus, before lodging a complaint, the condition precedent for the court to be satisfied are that material so produced before the court makes out a prima facie case for a complaint and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have prosecution under Section 193 IPC. (Vide: Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier & Anr., AIR1979SC290 and K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India, AIR1992SC1831.
8. In the case of Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr., AIR1971SC1367 this Court held:
“7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge.”
(Emphasis added)
9. In Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., AIR2005SC2119 this Court observed:
“In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1) (b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice…..”
(See also: R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC689 10. In view of the above, law on the issue can be summarized that in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, the court must prima facie reach a conclusion after holding preliminary inquiry that there has been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the court and interfere in the administration of justice. More so, it has to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice. The case is required to be decided in light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition.
11. The affidavit filed by respondent No.5 revealed that the respondent No.5 had submitted the final report (Part-I) in the aforesaid case on 11.1.2002 to the SP. It is also not in dispute as can be seen from the affidavit dated 5.4.2002, that the report submitted by the IO goes to the superior officers for scrutiny and comments. The High Court had passed a consent order dated 19.4.2002 wherein certain directions had been issued to the Director, CBI to examine the case. The Director, CBI after examining the record of the case, vide order dated 23.4.2002, asked the IO to tighten the loose ends of the case. The said order has not been challenged till date. It is also evident that charge sheet was filed on 5.12.2002 and, subsequently, cognizance was taken by the competent court on 10.1.2003. The case was filed under Section 340 read with Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C. by the appellant on 3.5.2006, i.e. after three and a half years.
12. The High Court while dealing with the case has also, after examining the original records as well as the file and particularly the confidential noting therein, came to the conclusion that in view of the directions issued by the superior authority, some other witnesses were examined “to tighten the loose ends of the case” and there was no attempt on the part of the investigating agency to mislead the court. The order dated 23.4.2002 passed by the Director, CBI has not been challenged by the appellant and the instant complaint had been filed after 3-1/2 years in 2006. The statements were recorded on such directions, however, only to the extent of tightening the loose ends. More so, the provisions of Section 195(1) (b) etc. are also attracted in such a fact-situation. After looking into the voluminous record of the case, what has been done after filing the affidavit or making the statement was minimal. The prosecution for perjury is required only where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonable, probable or likely. In the circumstances, a mere impression or perception of the appellant would not make the deposition on affidavit by the respondent No.5 to be false as being a deliberate and conscious act.
13. The court further observed that the complaint had been filed after 4 years on the basis of mere impression of the appellant and under no circumstances, it could be held that there had been some deliberate and conscious attempt to mislead the court which may warrant entertaining the application filed by the appellant.
14. We have given serious consideration to the material on record. However, we could not convince ourselves to take a view contrary to that of the High Court. The High Court has rightly reached the conclusion that there was no deliberate perjury to misguide the court while making such statement or filing the affidavit. In such a fact- situation, the question of allowing application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. was not warranted.
15. Thus, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks merit and, is accordingly dismissed. .........................………………..J.
(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) .............………………………J.
(S.A. BOBDE) New Delhi, November 22, 2013
http://ashokkumaraggarwal.weebly.com/thus-spake-the-press.html
Judge: B.S. CHAUHAN and S.A. BOBDE
Decided On: Nov-22-2013
Appellant: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Judgment:
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1842 OF2013Ashok Kumar Aggarwal …Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and final order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3314 of 2006 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.938 of 2001, by which the application filed by the appellant to proceed against respondent No.5 under Section 340 read with Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.’) has been dismissed.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The appellant had filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.938 of 2001 before the High Court of Delhi seeking transfer of investigation from respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to any other senior officer of Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to referred as `CBI’), as the said respondents had been abusing their investigating powers and adopted unfair and improper means in RC No.S19/E0006/99 dated 7.12.1999. B. The court made order dated 4.4.2002, on the submission of counsel for the respondent No.5 that the investigation report had been finalized in the said RC case and no further investigation was required to be done, directed the competent authority of the CBI to file an affidavit in this regard by 5th April, 2002. C. An affidavit was filed by respondent No.5 on 5.4.2002, being investigating officer, wherein it had been stated that the investigation was complete and that no further investigation was required to be done and a final report Part-1 (FR-1) was submitted by him on 11.1.2002 to the Superintendent of Police (in short `SP’). D. However, coming to know that certain witnesses had been examined by the CBI subsequent thereto, the appellant preferred an application under Section 340 r/w 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order. Hence, this appeal.
3. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that not only a statement was made, but even an affidavit had been filed by respondent No.5 before the High Court that the investigation was complete and an investigative report had been finalized by him and no further investigation was required. Therefore, if further witnesses had been examined and certain evidence had been collected, it is evident that the statement so given and affidavit filed by respondent No.5 was just to mislead the court and therefore, the court ought to have proceeded against him allowing the application filed by the appellant.
4. Per contra, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 and Ms. Indira Jaising, learned ASG for respondent No.1 and 2, have vehemently opposed this appeal contending that the submission made before the court and affidavit filed by respondent no.5 that investigation stood concluded, was factually correct. However, as per the procedure prescribed under the CBI manual, the investigation report submitted by the I.O. goes to the superior officers for their comments, approval and directions, and ultimately, it goes to the Director of the CBI. In case the superior authorities have some query in respect of any matter in that report of the investigating officer, they are competent to issue directions to examine a particular witness on a particular point. The investigating officer is bound to do so in order to tie the loose ends of investigation. Such examination of witness or further investigation does not amount to the statement made by the I.O. in the affidavit before the court being false or having been made deliberately and mischievously to misguide the court. As per the requirement of the procedure prescribed under the CBI manual, the I.O., even after filing such an affidavit, was bound to carry out such directions issued by the superior authorities.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC421 this Court held that nobody should be permitted to indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods in the judicial proceedings and if someone does so, it must be dealt with appropriately. In case recourse to a false plea is taken with an oblique motive, it would definitely hinder, hamper or impede the flow of justice and prevent the courts from performing their legal duties.
7. In this context, reference may be made of Section 340 under Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. under the heading of “Provisions as to Offences Affecting the Administration of Justice”. This Chapter deals with offences committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the court, or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the court and enables the court to make a complaint in respect of such offences if that court is of the view that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence. Clause (b) of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. authorizes such court to examine prima facie as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after having recorded a finding to that effect as contemplated under Section 340 (1) Cr.P.C. In such a case, the question remains as to whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offences and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take any action. Thus, before lodging a complaint, the condition precedent for the court to be satisfied are that material so produced before the court makes out a prima facie case for a complaint and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have prosecution under Section 193 IPC. (Vide: Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier & Anr., AIR1979SC290 and K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India, AIR1992SC1831.
8. In the case of Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr., AIR1971SC1367 this Court held:
“7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge.”
(Emphasis added)
9. In Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., AIR2005SC2119 this Court observed:
“In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1) (b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice…..”
(See also: R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC689 10. In view of the above, law on the issue can be summarized that in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, the court must prima facie reach a conclusion after holding preliminary inquiry that there has been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the court and interfere in the administration of justice. More so, it has to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice. The case is required to be decided in light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition.
11. The affidavit filed by respondent No.5 revealed that the respondent No.5 had submitted the final report (Part-I) in the aforesaid case on 11.1.2002 to the SP. It is also not in dispute as can be seen from the affidavit dated 5.4.2002, that the report submitted by the IO goes to the superior officers for scrutiny and comments. The High Court had passed a consent order dated 19.4.2002 wherein certain directions had been issued to the Director, CBI to examine the case. The Director, CBI after examining the record of the case, vide order dated 23.4.2002, asked the IO to tighten the loose ends of the case. The said order has not been challenged till date. It is also evident that charge sheet was filed on 5.12.2002 and, subsequently, cognizance was taken by the competent court on 10.1.2003. The case was filed under Section 340 read with Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C. by the appellant on 3.5.2006, i.e. after three and a half years.
12. The High Court while dealing with the case has also, after examining the original records as well as the file and particularly the confidential noting therein, came to the conclusion that in view of the directions issued by the superior authority, some other witnesses were examined “to tighten the loose ends of the case” and there was no attempt on the part of the investigating agency to mislead the court. The order dated 23.4.2002 passed by the Director, CBI has not been challenged by the appellant and the instant complaint had been filed after 3-1/2 years in 2006. The statements were recorded on such directions, however, only to the extent of tightening the loose ends. More so, the provisions of Section 195(1) (b) etc. are also attracted in such a fact-situation. After looking into the voluminous record of the case, what has been done after filing the affidavit or making the statement was minimal. The prosecution for perjury is required only where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonable, probable or likely. In the circumstances, a mere impression or perception of the appellant would not make the deposition on affidavit by the respondent No.5 to be false as being a deliberate and conscious act.
13. The court further observed that the complaint had been filed after 4 years on the basis of mere impression of the appellant and under no circumstances, it could be held that there had been some deliberate and conscious attempt to mislead the court which may warrant entertaining the application filed by the appellant.
14. We have given serious consideration to the material on record. However, we could not convince ourselves to take a view contrary to that of the High Court. The High Court has rightly reached the conclusion that there was no deliberate perjury to misguide the court while making such statement or filing the affidavit. In such a fact- situation, the question of allowing application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. was not warranted.
15. Thus, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal lacks merit and, is accordingly dismissed. .........................………………..J.
(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) .............………………………J.
(S.A. BOBDE) New Delhi, November 22, 2013
http://ashokkumaraggarwal.weebly.com/thus-spake-the-press.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)