The Delhi High Court Tuesday sought CBI's response on a plea by Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana seeking to be heard in a matter relating to the quashing of FIR registered against Special Director Rakesh Asthana on bribery allegations.
Sana is a complainant in the FIR.
Justice Najmi Waziri also sought replies of Asthana, CBI Director Alok Verma, Joint Director A K Sharma and DSP Devender Kumar on Sana's plea urging him to be impleaded as a party in Asthana's petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
The court directed Sana to appear before the CBI on December 17 after he sought direction to the agency no to take any coercive steps against him.
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee and advocate Rajdipa Behura, representing the CBI, said in this case, Sana was a complainant and so far no coercive steps were contemplated against him.
CBI counsel said Sana was asked to join the probe and some time back when he was asked to appear before the agency, he chose not to.
Also Read
The agency also opposed his plea to be impleaded as a party in Asthana's petition, saying it was not needed.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Sana, said the FIR was filed on the basis of his complaint. He was helping the agency in the investigation and should also be heard.
He said Sana was willing to appear before the agency and he also appeared before the Chief Vigilance Commission (CVC) on four occasions.
He said Sana's apprehension was that the entire theme of probe could change and then he could be forced to change his stand.
When Khurshid sought protection from coercive steps in another case lodged against Sana, the court said he will have to move a petition in this regard before an appropriate court.
The counsel said as the court has protected Asthana, an accused in the case, from coercive steps, Sana be also given protection.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on December 14.
Kumar, earlier the investigating officer in a case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, was arrested on the allegations of forgery in recording the statement of Sana who had alleged to have paid bribe to get relief in the case.
He had also made allegations of corruption, extortion, high handedness and serious malpractices against Asthana.
Kumar was granted bail by a Delhi court on October 31.
In a previous hearing, Asthana had claimed in the high court that prior government nod was needed for lodging FIR against him and Kumar in the graft case, a submission which was vehemently denied by his senior.
In response to Asthana's plea challenging the FIR, Verma had said in his affidavit that Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P S Narasimha's view was sought by the CBI on the need for prior government approval to lodge an FIR against public servants facing allegations of corruption and he had opined that it was not required.
Asthana's submission was countered by CBI, Verma and Joint Director A K Sharma who had argued that no sanction was required as the allegations against the two officers were not in relation to the discharge of their duties or any recommendation made or decision taken by them.
Asthana and Kumar's counsel had told the court that the CVC had sent two communications in October this year to CBI asking it not to register an FIR or take action against the two officers without prior approval.
They argued that section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes it mandatory that prior approval has to be taken before lodging an FIR or initiating preliminary enquiry against a public servant.
ASG Banerjee had said Sana's complaint was directly made to Verma and proper procedure was followed by the agency before lodging an FIR.
The court had extended till December 14, its interim order directing CBI to maintain status quo regarding proceedings against Asthana. Kumar is out on bail at present.
It also took on record Verma's affidavit which said there was sufficient incriminating documents and evidence against all accused -- Asthana, Kumar and middleman Manoj Prasad -- with CBI and FIR was lodged after the preliminary enquiry disclosed cognisable offences.
The Supreme Court had reserved judgement on Verma's plea, challenging the Centre's decision to divest him of all powers and sending him on leave.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content