IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal today got relief from the Delhi High Court which quashed the government's order granting sanction to prosecute him in two 18-year old cases relating to alleged framing of a businessman in a FERA case and graft, saying the CBI probe "smacks of intentional mischief".
The controversial 1985-batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer was suspended on December 28, 1999 after the CBI registered two cases against him - one for allegedly framing businessman Subhash Chandra Barjatya in a FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) violation case and the other for allegedly amassing wealth (rpt wealth).
While making strong comments on the manner in which the probe against Aggarwal had been carried out since 1998, Justice Siddharth Mridul also quashed the chargesheet and the charges framed against the then Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate (Delhi Zone), under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
"I am compelled to comment on the manner in which the investigation in the subject case has been carried out. The investigation smacks of intentional mischief to misdirect the investigation as well as withhold material evidence which would exonerate the petitioner (Aggarwal).
"These proceedings asseverate to be a glaring case of suggestion falsi, suppressio veri (suppression of the truth and the expression of what is false), and hence mala fide. It does not seem to be merely a case of faulty investigation but is seemingly an investigation coloured with motivation or an attempt to ensure that certain persons can go scot free," the judge said.
The conduct of the CBI brings to mind a paraphrase of the oft-quoted aphorism by George Orwell that 'all men are equal, but some are more equal than others', the court said.
"He has endured suffering, humiliation and considerable trauma. A sense of dubiety has persisted qua the petitioner since long which reminds one of the lyrics in the famous song by Bob Dylan, who said, 'How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man'," Justice Mridul said.
The High Court said the entire case of CBI rested on the testimony of controversial businessman Abhishek Verma, the approver in the case, who through an application in July 2014 had retracted his statement and stated that he had made the earlier statement under coercion and threat from theInvestigating Officer in the instant case.
It also noted that the official respondents had themselves later asserted that Verma has criminal antecedents and was not creditworthy.
Allowing Aggarwal's plea, the court observed that the CBI
had only relied upon the documents provided by some individuals to prove a case against him, but they never wished to cross-check the same.
"The CBI did not further inquire into the same. Such a procedure of investigation is unheard of and gives rise to a reasonable suspicion with respect to the intentions of the investigating agency," the judge said.
The judge in its 127-page order also said "Aggarwal has suffered great prejudice since 1998 on account of prolonged litigation between him and the Ministry."
It also observed that the case would have been remitted back to the sanctioning authority for reconsideration on a fresh order of sanction.
"However, in the circumstance that the instant case commenced as far back as in 1998 and 18 years have since lapsed, and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court ... In my opinion it would be unfair, unjust and contrary to the interests of justice to expose Aggarwal to another round of litigation and keep him on trial for an indefinitely long period.
"It would also offend the principle enshrined in the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A quietus must be applied to the present proceedings. Thus, in the interest of justice, finality is given to these proceedings and it is directed that no further proceedings in relation to the subject sanction orders be initiated against Aggarwal," the court added.
