HC stays or­der of cost on CBI’S se­nior of­fi­cer

Millennium Post - - NATION - MPOST BU­REAU

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Thurs­day granted in­terim re­lief to the CBI by stay­ing a trial court or­der im­pos­ing a cost of Rs 10,000 on its Di­rec­tor of Pros­e­cu­tion for de­lay­ing a 36-year-old theft case.

The high court's in­terim or­der came on a plea by the CBI chal­leng­ing the spe­cial court or­der of pass­ing stric­tures against the agency and its di­rec­tor of pros­e­cu­tion.

It also stayed the trial court or­der seek­ing per­sonal ap­pear­ance of Di­rec­tor of Pros­e­cu­tion of CBI be­fore it on the next date of hear­ing.

The case re­lates to the theft of an an­tique idol from the an­cient Takashakesh­war Ma­hadev tem­ple in Al­la­habad in 1981 which was be­ing al­legedly smug­gled to New York. It is prob­a­bly the old­est pend­ing crim­i­nal mat­ter in the coun­try.

Jus­tice Vinod Goel said the spe­cial court's Septem­ber 29 or­der shall op­er­ate only to the ex­tent that the pub­lic pros­e­cu­tor at­tached to the case shall re­spond to the clarifications sought by the trial court in the mat­ter which is at its fi­nal stage. The high court re­served its or­der on the CBI'S pe­ti­tion seek­ing to set aside the spe­cial court's or­der in which the agency was pulled up for its de­ci­sion to trans­fer a pros­e­cu­tor from the spe­cial court with­out post­ing an­other one in ad­vance.

The re­marks were made by Spe­cial Judge Sanjay Ku­mar Aggarwal, who was hear­ing the case which is now at the stage of fi­nal ar­gu­ments. The trial court had pulled up the CBI for not be­ing vig­i­lant enough to en­sure the dis­posal of this case.

In the high court, the BI coun­sel ar­gued that there was no lax­ity on its part and a mere trans­fer of a pros­e­cu­tor should not in­vite such re­marks from the court.

Ad­vo­cates Nikhil Goel and San­jeev Bhan­dari, ap­pear­ing for the CBI, ar­gued that the spe­cial judge nowhere men­tioned in his or­der that the pros­e­cu­tor was un­able to an­swer queries.

They said no in­con­ve­nience was caused to the trial court due to the trans­fer and the find­ing in the or­der was "per­verse" and it was "gross ex­ceed­ing of pow­ers by the ju­di­cial of­fi­cer".

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.