Saturday, Jul 13, 2002
Saturday, Jul 13, 2002 |
| Front Page | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
A three-Judge Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, B.N. Kirpal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice Arijit Pasayat, rejected the plea of senior counsel for the Hindujas, Kapil Sibal, not to stay the High Court order. (When the High Court by its June 10 judgment quashed the chargesheet against the Hindujas on technical ground that the CBI had not obtained consent of the Central Vigilance Commission before filing the chargesheet, it was considered a major setback to the CBI, which was pursuing the case for over a decade). Even as the Additional Solicitor-General, Harish Salve, who appeared for the CBI, pleaded for a stay of the High Court judgment, Mr. Sibal wanted the court to fix an early date for hearing of the CBI's appeal and in the meanwhile the trial proceedings should be stayed as its continuance would cause great prejudice to the three Hinduja brothers — Srichand, Gopichand and Prakash. Rejecting the plea, the Bench observed: "We are convinced that this judgment is completely unsustainable. Forget about this case, if such judgments are not stayed, no prosecution will succeed. We are staying the operation of the Delhi High Court judgment and all proceedings before the trial court should go on.'' When Mr. Sibal submitted that if the trial were allowed to go on, the charges against the accused would be framed, the Bench said: "Let the charges be framed. The proceedings have to go on''. "The `Vineet Narain judgment' (of the apex court) is not meant for this,'' the Bench said and fixed July 29 for hearing of the special leave petition and asked the Hindujas to file their replies by then. In its SLP, the CBI submitted that the High Court had failed to take note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court indicating as to when and in what circumstances cognisance should be quashed or chargesheets set aside. "The plea of the Hindujas before the High Court was intended only to delay the trial''. It said the High Court had erred in holding that the directions in the case of Vineet Narain required that the CVC review the results of investigation before the same were placed before the court as there was no such direction in the judgment. The CBI submitted that the High Court failed to note that the directions were merely that the CBI would report to the CVC and no power was conferred upon the CVC to monitor investigation. Once an investigation had begun, it was incumbent upon the investigating agency to file a report in the court and no person or authority had the right to interfere in the working of the agency. It further said that in the absence of any direction curtailing the jurisdiction of the court, the order of the special judge taking cognisance and issuing process to the Hinduja brothers could not be faulted. Seeking to set aside the High Court judgment and an interim stay of its operation, the CBI said the High Court without any allegation, much less material, had erred in holding that it could not be unmindful of the fact that CBI had been under a cloud. The procedure was meant to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same, the CBI added.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
