Court overturned trial court order and stayed the files seized by CBI from CM secretary's office
On Wednesday, the Delhi High court overturned a trial court's decision and allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to retain the files it had seized during a raid at the offices of Rajendra Kumar, Principal Secretary to the chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on December 15, 2015.
According to the CBI, the files that were seized are pertinent to their investigation in a corruption case against Kumar. Justice PS Teji ruled that the Aam Aadmi Party-led government's request for the return of the documents "is neither justifiable nor desirable" and it "could hamper" the investigation which was in the initial stages and "give undue favour to the accused persons." Kumar is facing a CBI inquiry on alleged corruption practices wherein he supposedly favoured companies in awarding contracts.
On January 20, merely a month after the raid, a CBI Special Judge AK Jain had directed the CBI to return the seized documents to the Delhi government. This prompted the agency to move the HC which set aside the order today. The HC questioned the government's agenda behind the return for the files since an individual was the subject of an investigation and not the government itself.
On the basis of the arguments heard over the past month, the court had one question: "Whether the documents in question are required to be retained for the purpose of investigation?" The court thus answered its question by passing its judgment. In making its case, CBI argued that documents incriminating the accused (Kumar) were found during the raid and hence they were seized. Attested photo copies of the same were supplied to the Delhi government twice - once at the time of seizure and once again upon the court's direction.
To support his claim, the Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta relied upon the judgment in the case of RP Singh vs. JAC Saldanha and others (1980) wherein "Judicial Committee clearly demarcates the functions of the executive and the judiciary in the field of detection of crime and its subsequent trial and it would appear that the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary."
In its 29-page order, Justice Teji pointed out several lapses and contradictions in the trial court judgment. A few instances given by the HC were: the trial court had passed an order without hearing the CBI's plea for retaining the files in question. It also said that the trial judge went into the relevancy of the documents despite the fact that a charge sheet has not been filed yet and that the investigation is still in its initial stages.
IO's opinion counts
The HC stated that the Investigating Officer's (IO) opinion must be considered, failing which it would amount to the interference of an investigation. And lastly, the HC questioned the logic of returning the files back to the government only to be re-seized by the sleuths if required at any point in the investigation.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Arvind")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}