CBI should arrest Anil Deshmukh and also add section 409 of Indian Penal Code.

 CBI should arrest Anil Deshmukh and also add section 409 of Indian Penal Code.

 Indian Bar Association (IBA) is going to file Writ Petition seeking direction to CBI Director to take immediate steps to start custodial interrogation of accused Ministers.

Strict action required against Anil Deshmukh & other Ministers involved in the conspiracy of extortion, murder etc.

If C.B.I. officers fails to take prompt action then the Investigation Officer may face action under sec. 218,201 etc of IPC.[ para 3 ]

 

Mumbai:- As per Bombay High Court's judgment dated 5^th April 2021, the CBI on 21^st April 2021 registered an FIR against Ex-Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and others. 

 If we go by the allegations against Anil Deshmukh in the FIR then prima facie it is a case where  Anil Deshmukh being a public servant holding the  post of Home Minister misused that post and misutilized the public property and machinary for collection of bribe / Hafta from the Bar owners and others.

In other words it is a clear case of misappropriation of public property for his ulterior motive.

The allegations and evidences prima facie are sufficient to prosecute and punish Anil Deshmukh and others under section 409 etc of Indian Penal Code and also sec 13 in  The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Section 409 reads thus ;

“409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either descrip­tion for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

2. NECESSITY OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OF ACCUSED ANIL DESHMUKH & OTHER MINISTERS AND CO ACCUSED:-

2.1. The offence committed by the accused is a most serious and gravest one. The person who has been given the post of the Public Trust to maintain law and order has breached the said trust and faith reposed upon him  and he  started extortion by using state police machinery.

2.2. Hon’ble Supreme Court had time and now ruled that the offences like present one are the cancer to the society and needs to be dealt with iron hand as they are obstructing the development of our country.

2.3. In P. Chidambaram’s case (2019) 9 SCC 24, it is ruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the accused Minister should not be granted bail and his custodial interrogation is must.

“84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of “placement”, “layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin” and “interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets”, it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As held in Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] , success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order [P. Chidambaram v. CBI, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703] . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 

Present matter of money-laundering offence (INX Media case) allegedly showing involvement of appellant i.e. an ex-Finance Minister of India and certain others in crime — Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investigation, held, investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation – Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation.

2.4. In the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703, it is ruled as under;

“23. Supreme Court in Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy (Supra) while dealing with a money laundering case, has reiterated as under:—

“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”

26. The pertinent observations of Supreme Court in CBI v. Anil Sharma (Supra) which aptly apply to the instant case, are as follows:—

“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

27. Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (Supra), while dealing with multiple investigations involving multiple conspirators has reiterated that the approach to be followed while dealing with bail plea in cases involving criminal conspiracy to commit economic offences of huge magnitude relating to public money ought to be strict as fraudulent transactions affect the economic system to the detriment of the country. It was pertinently observed that economic crimes of such mammoth scale are craftily planned and executed. Thus, grant of bail in cases like instant one will send a wrong message to the society.

28. In the instant case, in view of the enormous material placed on record in respect of distinguished entities, various transactions etc, this Court unhesitatingly opines that bail plea of petitioner is not acceptable. Recently, Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 while dealing with the bail plea in a money laundering case, has again reiterated that white collar crimes/economic offenders have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge amount of public funds and this should be viewed seriously and such offences ought to be considered as grave offences. Pertinently, the bail plea in the case of Rohit Tandon (Supra) was repelled by the Supreme Court while observing that duty of the Court at the bail stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the broad probabilities of the case.

29. This is a classic case of money laundering. The twin factors which have weighed to deny pre-arrest bail to petitioner are : (i) Gravity of offence and (ii) evasive replies given by petitioner to the questions put to him while he was under protective cover extended to him by this Court. The parameters governing pre-arrest bail and regular bail are altogether different. I have pondered over this matter for long and after weighing the pros and cons, I am of the considered view that the gravity of the offence committed in the instant case amply justifies denial of pre-arrest bail to petitioner. Grant of pre-arrest bail in a serious matter like instant one to an accused simply on the ground that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, would defeat the ends of justice. In bail matters, gravity of the offence is of utmost consideration which weighs with the Court in granting or refusing pre-arrest bail or regular bail. The facts of this case persuades me to decline pre-arrest bail to petitioner while refraining to comment on the merits of the case.

30. Upon considering the case set up against petitioner in its entirety, this Court is of prima facie opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner. Consequentially, both these applications are accordingly disposed of, while observing that anything stated herein shall not be taken as an expression on merits at trial.”

3. If C.B.I. officers fails to take prompt action then the Investigation Officer may face action under sec. 218,201 etc of IPC.

3.1.  That, when Hon’ble Suprme Court laid down the ratio,law and given guidelines that in such cases custodial interrogation of accused is must then the Investigation Officer or anyone including Judges cannot exercise his discretion and take a different stand.[Medical Council  2016, Sundarjas Bhatija AIR 1990 SC 261]

In Kodali Puranchandra Rao and another V. The Public Prosecutor, AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 1925, it is ruled that  the discretion given to the police officer is to be exercised prudently and honestly. 

3.2. If the investigation is not done as per the law ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned in this representation then it amounts to an offence under sec 218,201 etc of IPC.

In Kodali Puranchandra Rao (supra), it is ruled as under;

“PROSECUTION OF INVESTIGATION OFFICER -  Under sections 218,468,201 of Penal Code for framing the record of investigation in a manner which he knew to be incorrect with intent to save or knowing to be likely that he will thereby save the true offender or offenders from legal punishment

 

Held,

47. There can be no doubt that on the basis of the facts found,the charges under Sections 218,468,Penal Code had been fully established against the appellant A-2 being a public servant charged with the preparation of official record relating to the investigation of the cause of the death of Kalarani, framed that record in a manner which he knew to be incorrect with intent to save or knowing to be likely that he will thereby save the true offender or offenders from legal punishment. Obviously, he prepared this false and forged record with the fraudulent and dishonest intention of misleading his superior officers and inducing them to do or omit to do anything which they would not do or omit if they were not so deceived or induced. A-1, as discussed already, facilitated and intentionally aided A-2 in the preparation of the false and forded record.

 

48. For the foregoing reasons we uphold the convictions and sentences of the appellants on all the counts, as recorded by the High Court and dismiss the appeal.”

The FIR registered by the CBI reads thus;

“First Information contents (Attach separate sheet, if required)

A complaint dated 21.04.2021 of Sh. R.S. Gunjiyal, DSP AC V, CBI, New Delhi address to the HOB, AC V, CBI, New Delhi has been received. The contents of the complaint are reproduced below:

To,

    The Head of the Branch,

    AC-V, CBI, New Delhi.

Sub: Complaint against Sh. Anil Deshmukh, the then Home Minister, Govt. of Maharashtra and unknown others on the basis of the findings of the PE.

Sir,

The Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay vide order dated 5^th April 2021 in PIL number 06/2021 and batch of connected PILS in the matter of Shri Param Bir Singh versus State of Maharashtra and others (Annexure-A, 52 page) directed CBI to initiate a Preliminary Enquiry into the complaint of Dr. Jaishri Laxmanra Patil (Annexure —B, Il pages)

Pursuant to the said order Preliminary Enquiry vide PE2232021A0001,  dated 06.04.2021 was registered in CBI against Sh Anil Deshmukh, he then Home Minister, Government of Maharashtra and unknown others and was assign to the undersigned for conducting enquiry,

The Preliminary Enquiry prima facie revealed that a cognizable offence is made out in the matter, wherein the then Home minister of Maharashtra, Shri Anil Deshmukh and unknown others have attempted to obtain undue advantage for improper and dishonest performance of their public duty.

Enquiry has also revealed that Shri Sachin Vaze, Assistant Police Inspector, Mumbai Police had been reinstated into the police force after being out of the police service for more than 15 years. The enquiry further revealed that Shri Sachin Vaze was entrusted with most of the sensational and important cases of Mumbai City Police and that the then Home Minister was in knowledge of the said fact.

Further, the petition of Shri Param Bir Singh (Annexure-104 pages) also finds mention of the fact that the then Home Minister of Maharashtra and others exercised undue influence over the transfer & posting of officials and thereby exercising undue influence over the performance of official duties by the officials.

Therefore, it is requested that a regular case may be registered under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and section 120 B of IPC against Shri Anil Deshmukh, the then Home Minister of Maharashtra and unknown others. 

Submitted for necessary action please.

 (RS Gunjiyal)

DS, AC-v, cm, New Delhi

The complaint is annexed herewith as Annexure- D (2 sheets)

The facts as mentioned above prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and section 120 B of IPC against Shri Anil Deshmukh, the then Home Minister of Maharashtra and unknown others, hence, a Regular Case is registered and investigation of this case is entrusted to Sh. Mukesh Kumar, DSP, AC Il, CBI, New Delhi.

Supdt of Police,

CBI: AC – V. New Delhi. ”

Chief Justice of Supreme Court found guilty

 

 Chief Justice of Supreme Court found guilty of violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen.

 

 United Nations Human Rights Committee slammed the Supreme Court Chief Justice for arbitrary conviction and detention in Criminal Contempt.

 

Committee directed Government to provide compensation to the contemnor.  

  

 19 Judges’ Committee including Justice P. N. Bhagawati of Supreme Court of India observed that the sentence of imprisonment in criminal contempt was draconian & arbitrary.

  The UN committee of 19 Judges,  directed the government to amend their law/constitution to provide compensation to the petitioner and to prevent such violations by the Supreme Court in future.

 

 In Prashant Bhushan’s case Justice Khanwilkar’s Bench considered the said legal position (Judgment) as a valid ground for stay of proceedings regarding review of the conviction and sentence.

 

 This ratio will impact on other high profile cases that of  of Vijay Mallya, Subrata Roy Sahara, Adv. Nilesh Ojha, Rashid Khan Pathan & Adv. Vijay Kurle etc.

 

The most serious case is of Subrata Roy Sahara, who  was put behind the bars by the Supreme Court for around 2 years under contempt, when the maximum punishment for committing contempt is six months.

 

As per Indian Penal Code such Judge should face prosecution under Section 220, where Judge will get seven years imprisonment. 

 

This blog divided in two parts;

i) Case before United Nation Human Rights Committee.

ii) Its impact on Re: Prashant Bhusan, Re: Vijay Kurle, Subrata Roy Sahara & Dr. Vijay Mallya and other similar cases.

  1.    Case before U.N. Human Rights Committee.

Citation: Anthony Michael Emmanuel Fernando Vs. Sri Lanka 2005 SCC OnLine HRC 22.

 1.1. The petitioner Anthony Fernando filed a petition before United Nation High Commissioner for Human & arbitrary Rights alleging unlawful conviction & sentence under contempt by the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice.

 1.2. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka convicted and sentenced him under contempt for rigorous imprisonment of 1 year. He was convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court without framing any charge, without providing any legal aid, without any opportunity to defend the case and without giving reason as to why sentence of imprisonment is necessary.

       He was not provided any higher appellate tribunal against her conviction under contempt by the Supreme Court.

 1.3. The Government (state party) submitted that the Supreme Court is an independent authority and not under state's control. The petitioner was given opportunity to tender apology but he failed to express regret.

 1.4. The United Nations Human Right Committee having 19 Judges Members including Justice P. N. Bhagwati, the former Supreme Court Judge from India strongly criticized the Supreme Court and concluded that the conviction and sentence under contempt by the Supreme Court was arbitrary & draconian. Committee directed the state party to provide the petitioner with an adequate remedy including compensation and to amend constitution which are necessary to avoid similar violation in future.

          It is concluded by the committee as under;

 9.2 The Committee notes that courts notably in Common Law jurisdictions have traditionally enjoyed authority to maintain order and dignity in court debates by the exercise of a summary power to impose penalties for “contempt of court.” But here, the only disruption indicated by the State party is the repetitious filing of motions by the author, for which an imposition of financial penalties would have evidently been sufficient, and one instance of “rais [ing] his voice” in the presence of the court and refusing thereafter to apologize. The penalty imposed was a one year term of “Rigorous Imprisonment”. No reasoned explanation has been provided by the court or the State party as to why such a severe and summary penalty was warranted, in the exercise of a court's power to maintain orderly proceedings. Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant forbids any “arbitrary” deprivation of liberty. The imposition of a draconian penalty without adequate explanation and without independent procedural safeguards falls within that prohibition. The fact that an act constituting a violation of article 9, paragraph 1 is committed by the judicial branch of government cannot prevent the engagement of the responsibility of the State party as a whole. The Committee concludes that the author's detention was arbitrary, in violation of article 9, paragraph 1. In the light of this finding in the present case, the Committee does not need to consider the question whether provisions of article 14 may have any application to the exercise of the power of criminal contempt. Similarly, the Committee does not need to consider whether or not there was a violation of article 19.

 

10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the State party has violated articles 9, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

11. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an adequate remedy, including compensation, and to make such legislative changes as are necessary to avoid similar violations in the future. The State party is under an obligation to avoid similar violations in the future.

12. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a State party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2, of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to its Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee's Views.

 

  1.5. In a similar case the committee in the cases of conviction by the Supreme Court has observed that, failure to provide one Appeal by larger Bench violated the Article 14 ICCPR and directed compensation with warning and warned the various countries such as Spain, New Zealand, Ukraine, Russia etc. to provide one appellate jurisdiction which is different than the power of the review by the Supreme Court.

          [See: Luis Olivero Capellades Vs. Spain 2006 SCC OnLine HRC 42, Sergei Nicholaiovich Romanov Vs. Ukraine 2003 SCC OnLine HRC 54, Jesus Terron Vs. Spain 2004 SCC OnLine HRC 65, Dimitry Leonudovich Gridin Vs. Russian Federation 2000 SCC OnLine HRC 31].    

 

  1.6. The state were directed to pay the compensation to the victim for the mistakes committed by the Judges of the Supreme Court.

 

  1.7. Five Judge Bench of Privy Council in the landmark judgement in the case of Ramesh Maharaj's case (1978) WLR 902 had laid down in similar law that if the unlawful conviction under Contempt is by the Judge of the Court then state is bound to pay the compensation as the Judiciary is the executive arm of the state.

 

Said ratio is acknowledged by the Supreme Court of India in D.K. Basu's case (1997) 1 SCC 416.

 

2.       EFFECT OF THE SAID RATIO IN INDIA ON THE CASES OF PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND OTHERS. 

 

  2.1. In India the issue of providing ‘Intra Court Appeal’ is in debate all over the country from two cases one of Adv. Prashant Bhushan & other is of Adv. Vijay Kurle, Adv. Nilesh Ojha and Rashid Khan Pathan.

 

  2.2. 2.4. Justice Krishna Iyer sitting in Full Bench in the landmark judgment in Madhav Hoskot’s case (1978) 3 SCC 544 had ruled that the convicted person should have one appellate jurisdiction even if the conviction is by the Highest Court.

Said judgment is upheld by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Anita Kushwaha’s case (2016) 8 SCC 509.

  2.3.  But except said lip service nothing constructive and result oriented approach adopted and the Supreme Court never set-up the ‘Intra-Court Appeal’.

2.4. However, legality of unlawful convictions of Police Commissioner M. S. Ahlawat under contempt and perjury by the two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was considered and set aside in Writ Jurisdiction under Article 129 & 142  by the larger Full Bench in the judgment of M. S. Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 1 SCC 278.

Said jurisdictionunder Article 129 & 142 was again upheld by the Constitution Bench in Rupa Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388.

2.5. Seven Judge Constitution Bench in A. R. Antulay’s case (1988) 2 SCC 602 in para 48 had ruled that Court is not powerless to correct its error which has the effect of depriving a citizen of his fundamental rights and more so, the right to life and liberty;

“48. According to Shri Jethmalani, the doctrine of per incuriam has no application in the same proceedings. We are unable to accept this contention. We are of the opinion that this Court is not powerless to correct its error which has the effect of depriving a citizen of his fundamental rights and more so, the right to life and liberty. It can do so in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in any proceeding pending before it without insisting on the formalities of a review application. Powers of review can be exercised in a petition filed under Article 136 or Article 32 or under any other provision of the Constitution if the court is satisfied that its directions have resulted in the deprivation of the fundamental rights of a citizen or any legal right of the petitioner. See the observations in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner [AIR 1963 SC 996 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR 885].”

Same ratio is again followed in Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224.

 2.6.   In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Re: Vijay Kurle  the cases the advocates were convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court without providing them the facility of Appeal, to challenge their conviction.

 

  2.7. Adv. Prashant Bhushan and Rashid Khan Pathan filed Writ Petition for setting up the Intra Court Appeal.

 

  2.8. Then he on 15.12.2020 has filed an I. A. No. 139168 of 2020 before the Bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar before whom the petition for review of conviction and sentence was pending.

  2.9. In the said I.A. one of the ground was that as per International Covenant on (iv) Rights, he is entitled for one higher Appellate Tribunal.

The ground (iii) of the said I. A. reads thus;

“iii) 12.09.2020: Petitioner-Applicant preferred W.P. (C) NO. 1053/2020, (bearing Diary Number 19696/2020), which has a direct bearing on this Review Petition. Amongst other grounds, in line with India's obligations under Article 14(5) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by India in 1976) which guarantees to everyone a right of appeal in a criminal conviction and the interpretation accorded thereto by the United Nations Human Rights Committee where the conviction in the first instance is by the highest court of the land in the cases of Terron v, Spain, o Comm. 1073/2002, U.N. Doc, A/60/40, VOL 11, at 111 (HRC 2004), Hens Serena and Corujo Rodriguez v. Spain, Comm. 13511352/2005, U.N. Doc A/63/40, vol. 11, at 93 (HRC 2008), Ratiani v. Georgia, Views, Human Rights Comm. 84th Scss., July 11-29, 2005, paras. 11.2-11.3, UN, Doc. No. CCPR/C/84/D/975/2001 (July 21, 2005), Olivero Capellades v. Spain, Comm. 1211/2003, U.N. Doc. A/61/40, vol. rx, at 327 (HRC 2006), Anthony Fernando v. Sri Lanka, Communication No. 1189/2003, U.N.  Doc. CCPR/C/83/D/1189/2003 (2005), read with the Doctrine of Incorporation laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, (1984) 2 SCC 3 534, and Article 51(c) and Article 253, the W.P. prays:

"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that a person convicted for criminal contempt by this Hon'ble Court, including the petitioner herein, would have a right to an intra-court appeal to be heard by a larger and different bench.

b)       Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction framing rules and guidelines providing for intra-court appeal against conviction in original criminal contempt cases as referred in prayer (a.) above.

c)       Alternatively, issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that review petitions filed against orders of conviction by Supreme Court in original criminal contempt cases would be heard in open court by a different bench;

2.10. The said ground was accepted by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and on 16/12/2020 in the reported case In Re: Prashant Bhushan 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1146 had observed that the said ground and principles of natural justice mandates that the court should wait for outcome of the decision in Writ for Intra- Court Appeal. The court observed as under ;

“1. For the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 131968 of 2020) and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed in terms of prayer (I).

2. List the Review Petitions (Nos. 326 and 328 of 2020 respectively), after the disposal of the Writ Petition (C) No. 1053 of 2020.”                                                  

2.11. Principally Supreme Court accepted the right of the person to have on Appeal who is convicted under contempt by the Supreme Court.   

2.12. But the said Writ Petitions filed by Adv. Prashant Bhushan, Rashid Khan, Adv. Nilesh Ojha & Adv. Vijay Kurle are not listed till date. The decision in above said Writ Petitions for setting up the Intra Court Appeal  will impact the cases of other contempt conviction of Dr. Vijay Mallya & Subrata Roy Sahara etc..

 

 

 

 

 

 

सरन्यायाधीशांनी सुप्रीम कोर्टाच्या दोन न्यायाधीशांना केस मधून हटविले.

   सरन्यायाधीशांनी सुप्रीम कोर्टाच्या दोन न्यायाधीशांना केस मधून हटविले.

Ø  न्या. एल. नागेश्वर राव व न्या. अनिरुद्ध बोस यांच्याकडून केस काढून न्या. अशोक भूषण यांच्या खंडपीठाकडे हस्तांतरीत.

Ø  रशीद खान पठाण यांच्या तक्रारीनंतर कारवाई.

Ø  सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाचा इतिहासातील पहिलीच घटना.

Ø  अॅड. प्रशांत भूषण यांची अशीच विनंती केली होती अमान्य.

Ø  दोन्ही न्यायाधीशांविरुद्ध खोटे पुरावे रचने, केसचे रिकॉर्ड चोरी करणे, कटात सहभागी होणे व वरीष्ठ खंडपीठाच्या आदेशाचे उल्लंघन केल्याचे आरोप.

Ø   न्यायाधीशांविरुद्ध फौजदारी कारवाई व कोर्ट अवमानना कायद्याअंतर्गत कारवाईसाठी दोन याचिका सर्वोच्च न्यायालयात दाखल.

नवी दिल्ली :- प्रसिद्ध मानव अधिकार कार्यकर्ते रशीद खान पठाण यांनी सुप्रीम कोर्टाचे 4 विद्यमान न्यायाधीशांवर आरोपींना वाचविण्यासाठी व अर्जदारास खोट्या गुन्ह्यात फसविण्यासाठी खोटे पुरावे रचने, केसचे रिकॉर्ड चोरी करणे, व खोट्या पुराव्याच्या आधारावर बेकायदेशीर आदेश पारीत करणे तसेच ते गैरकायदेशीर आदेश वरीष्ठ खंडपीठाने खारीज केल्यानंतरसुद्धा त्याच गैरकायदेशीर आदेशावर ठाम राहून सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या वरीष्ठ खंडपीठाची अवमानना करणे याबाबत पुरावे देवून शपथपत्रावर दोन याचिका सर्वोच्च न्यायालयात दाखला केल्या आहेत. त्या याचिकेमध्ये आरोपी न्यायाधीशांविरुद्ध भादवि 192, 193, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 209, 211, 218, 219, 220, 466, 471, 474 r/w 120 (B) & 34 व कोर्ट अवमानना कायदा, 1971 चे कलम 12 अंतर्गत फौजदारी कारवाई करून त्यांना शिक्षा देण्याची मागणी करण्यात आली होती.

त्या याचिकेत आरोपी न्यायाधीश अनिरुद्ध बोस व दीपक गुप्ता यांनी तत्कालीन सरन्यायाधीश रंजन गोगोई यांच्या नावावर खोटे पुरावे रचल्याचे खुद्द चीफ जस्टीस ऑफ इंडियाच्या कार्यालया कडून माहिती अधिकाराअंतर्गत प्राप्त माहितीमध्ये उघड झाले असून त्यांच्या कटात त्यांना सहकार्य करणारे तीन न्यायाधीश न्या. रोहींटन नरीमन, न्या. विनीत सरण, न्या. एल. नागेश्वर राव आणी तीन वकिल अॅड. सिद्धार्थ लुथरा, अॅड. मिलींद साठे व कैवान कल्याणीवाला यांच्याविरुद्ध सर्व पुराव्यासह शपथपत्रावर आरोप करण्यात आले असल्याची माहीती याचिकाकर्ते रशीद खान पठाण यांनी दिली.

दि. 31.03.2021 रोजी याचिकाकर्त्याने सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाचे तसेच देशातील सर्व न्यायालयातील सर्व न्यायाधीशांना व्यक्तीगतरीत्या एक पत्र लिहून भारतीय संविधान, सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने ठरवून दिलेले कायदे तसेच पवित्र धर्मग्रंथ गीता व कुराण यांच्यामध्ये न्यायासंबंधी ठरवून दिलेली नीतिमूल्ये व न्यायाधीशांना करण्यात येणाऱ्या शिक्षेसंबंधी ठरविण्यात आलेली शिक्षा आदींच्या आधारावर विनंती केली की त्याच्या तक्रारीवर चौकशी करण्यात यावी आणी त्याचे आरोप चुकीचे असतील तर त्याच्याविरुद्ध कारवाई करण्यात यावी आणी जर आरोप खरे असतील तर दोषी न्यायाधीशांविरुद्ध कठोर कारवाई करण्याची मागणी करण्यात आली होती.

त्यानंतर झालेल्या घडामोडीत सरन्यायाधीश श्री. शरद बोबडे यांनी रशीद खान पठाण यांची केस न्या. एल. नागेश्वर राव न्या. अनिरुद्ध बोस यांच्या खंडपीठाकडून काढून घेवून न्या. अशोक भूषण व न्या. आर. सुभाष रेड्डी यांच्या खंडपीठाकडे वर्ग केली.

एखाद्या प्रकरणात अश्या आरोपांवर सुप्रीम कोर्टाच्या न्यायाधीशांकडून केस काढून दुसऱ्या खंडपीठाकडे वर्ग करण्याची ही पहिलीच वेळ असल्याचे दिसते. या आधी अॅड. प्रशांत भूषण यांनी ऑगस्ट 2020 मध्ये अशीच मागणी केली होती की न्या. अरुण मिश्रांच्या न्यायालयातून त्यांची केस काढून घेवून दुसऱ्या न्यायाधीशांकडे वर्ग करण्यात यावी. परंतू त्यांची विनंती ही सरन्यायाधीश श्री. शरद बोबडे यांनी मान्य केली नव्हती.

सदर प्रकरणात रशीद खान यांच्याविरुद्ध दोन न्यायाधीशांनी 27 एप्रिल 2020 रोजी दिलेले आदेश हे सुप्रीम कोर्टाच्या वरीष्ठ खंडपीठाने 14 ऑगस्ट 2020 रोजी व मार्च 2021 रोजी बेकायदेशीर ठरविले आहेत.

त्याशिवाय रशीद खान व त्यांच्या वकिलाच्या अनुपस्थीतीत खोट्या पुराव्याच्या आधारावर बचावाची योग्य संधी न देता शिक्षा सुनावल्यामुळे भारतीय संविधानाचे कलम 21 व  39-A चे उल्लंघन झाल्यामुळे दोषी न्यायाधीशांविरुद्ध 100 कोटी रुपये नुकसान भरपाईसाठी याचिका लवकरच दाखल करण्यात येणार असल्याची माहिती रशीद खान यांनी दिली.