The judges showed their displeasure at the CBI as it had told a trial court on Wednesday that there was no evidence to implicate K L Verma, an enforcement directorate officer, and Larry Kolbe, arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi's son-in-law. Ultimately, the CBI had to take back this decision. The division bench consisting of Justice J S Verma and Justice B N Kirpal told attorney general Ashok Desai: In the beginning, we thought that news reports to this effect appearing in the newspapers were incorrect. But now we are constrained to observe that the CBI's stand in this regard is indefensible.
The judges observed that if someone handling the case was not equal to the task of investigating the case, he should confess to the government that it was beyond him. The court need not remind the officers every time what they are supposed to do in the case.
As the old proverb goes, you can make someone go to the pond but cannot make him drink, the judges remarked.
We must make it plain that if we find this kind of sloppiness and lack of understanding with the officers dealing with the case we will be constrained to say in writing that in our perception that person is not equal to the task set before him. If the government then still wants to retain him it is for it to do so, the judges observed.
CBI director Joginder Singh and other top functionaries of revenue and other departments were present in the court as usual. The caustic remarks began to shower on the CBI sleuths as soon as Anil Divan, senior counsel assisting the court in the matter, mentioned a news report saying that the two persons were being discharged. He said it was unmistakable evidence to show that the functioning of the CBI was not up to the expectations.Earlier, the court had orderedthat no person will be discharged without its sanction. The plea before the trial court for the discharge for the two accused went directly contrary to the order.The court told Desai that it would have been more appropriate for the CBI to have left the matter to the trial court instead of praying for the discharge.If you seek discharge you are soliciting the court's order saying that so far as you are concerned the case is over. Is this your stand? the judges asked.
The court added that if some accused was dead, the plea for discharge could be understood. But you cannot say discharge the accused and give them a certificate to go out.The attorney general tried to soften the impact by stating that the discharge was due to the non-availability of evidence to nail the two accused.When he said that the CBI had some difficulty in sorting out the income tax and Fera aspect of the affair, the judges reminded him that the whole thing involved national security as the money was being used for militants.
The court recorded that the allegation against the CBI was disturbing. It added that on instructions from Joginder Singh, the attorney general had submitted that no prayer for discharge of any accused has been made even though by inadvertence something which has been said in the chargesheet in the St Kitts case does appear to give that impression. The court clarified once again that it was not interested in the details of the investigations.
but only to see that the officers were doing their duty.
