Posted On by &filed under Court, Judiciary & Legal System, High Profile Cases.


A court here has rejected a CBI closure report pertaining to a disproportionate assets case against a Superintendent Engineer of Delhi Jal Board (DJB), saying it was filed on the basis of “unfounded fear” and “fanciful apprehension”.

Special Judge Manoj Jain said “I, therefore, return the closure report with direction to CBI to have a relook on the entire matter, fearlessly and fairly, and to take further necessary steps in accordance with law.”

“CBI should not have filed a closure report on the basis of unfounded fear and fanciful apprehension that the case will ultimately result in acquittal of the accused. It is expected that needful would be done without any delay,” the court said.

It observed that due to mandatory bar provided under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, this court cannot take cognisance without there being a valid sanction for prosecution of the accused from a competent authority.

“I need not emphasise the fact that a case might ultimately lead to an acquittal would not be a reason strong enough for withholding sanction. Whether the evidence available is adequate or not is a matter best left to court for judicial adjudication,” the special judge said.

It said that CBI has under complete erroneous belief that the case will ultimately result in acquittal of the accused has chosen to file closure report instead of placing the material before the concerned sanctioning authority.

“I am really at bay to understand as to what happened at the fag end of investigation and why CBI took a virtual somersault,” the court said.

CBI had registered a FIR under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in September 2011, against P K Jain then a Executive Engineer with DJB, after a search at his residence had led to recovery of unaccounted cash of Rs 9,36,300 along with various incriminating documents.

According to the FIR, scrutiny of the documents seized during search, revealed that Jain had amassed assets by corrupt and illegal means and his such assets were disproportionate to his known sources of income.


Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz