The Delhi High Court has directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against six CBI officials over allegations that a misleading statement was placed before the court concerning communication with the government in a case involving former IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.
Justice Madhu Jain allowed Aggarwal’s plea and directed the Special Judge dealing with CBI matters to lodge a written complaint against Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam and Md Azad.
The complaint has been ordered in relation to alleged offences under Sections 191, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning false evidence and the making of a false claim before a court.
The Special Judge has been given four weeks from receipt of the High Court’s October 6 judgment to prepare and forward the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Dispute over CBI’s correspondence
The matter traces back to a corruption case against Aggarwal, who had been accused of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
In January 2016, the High Court found the sanction for his prosecution invalid and he was subsequently discharged.
The CBI considered challenging that decision before the Supreme Court. However, the Ministry of Law and Justice advised in June 2016 that there were no sufficient grounds to pursue an appeal. The Department of Personnel and Training conveyed that position to the CBI the following month.
The dispute arose when Aggarwal later sought the return of documents seized during the investigation.
In a reply dated August 2, 2016, the CBI stated that discussions with the Ministry regarding further legal action were still underway.
The High Court, however, found that the records told a different story.
Drafts became central to the case
While examining successive versions of the CBI’s response, the Court found that an earlier draft had specifically recorded that the DoPT had rejected the proposal to challenge the discharge before the Supreme Court.
That portion was later removed. In its place, a handwritten statement was inserted suggesting that correspondence with the Ministry was continuing.
For the High Court, this went beyond an innocent or imprecise use of language.
The Court said the sequence of events provided a “reasonable foundation” for the allegation that a false statement had been made before the court and that an inquiry was necessary in the interests of justice.
The subsequent correction made by the CBI in another reply dated August 9, 2016 did not persuade the Court to drop the matter. Nor did the absence of demonstrable prejudice to Aggarwal.
The judgment noted that the preparation, alteration, vetting, approval and filing of the disputed response, viewed alongside the earlier drafts and official file records, provided a prima facie basis to conclude that the officials concerned may have advanced a position inconsistent with what was already known within the department.
The Court therefore ordered the Special Judge to initiate the complaint process against the six officials.
The proceedings stem from Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan & Ors.