CBI-ED reprimanded again
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the modus operandi of the ED-CBI in the investigation of the alleged liquor scam in Delhi. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan criticised the modus operandi of the ED-CBI in oral observations. The bench even said that the agencies adopt a 'pick and choose' policy from witnesses to accused, which is discriminatory. It said that in the case of K. Kavitha, the ED-CBI relied on statements of select witnesses and witnesses who went in favour of the government so that it could easily frame charges.
PressNews24 provides latest news, bollywood news, breaking news hollywood, top tech news, business standard news, indian economy news, world economy news, travel news, mumbai news, latest news mumbai loksabha election 2024, video viral news, delhi news, Only at PressNews24.in
The prosecution should be impartial. The person who has confessed his crime is made a witness. Tomorrow if you like someone you can pick him and if you don't like him you can leave him. You cannot pick or leave any accused. What kind of impartiality is this? Such a situation is very sad. If she has any role then it is just like K. Kavitha. So it is clear that you are picking one and leaving the other.
Supreme Court reprimanded CBI-ED
If the 'pick-and-choose' comment hurts you, then sure
Justice Gavai said, “You cannot single out any accused. If you look at the statements of the government witness, his (Sharad Reddy's) role (in the alleged scam) is also similar to Kavitha's. The prosecution should be fair. You cannot single out anyone. Is this fairness? A person who incriminates himself despite being a witness (but is not prosecuted)? Is this a very fair and correct use of discretion?” Also, Justice Vishwanathan raised the issue of relying on the statements of a co-accused to take action against an accused.
Justice Vishwanathan said, “If we look at the evidence against the petitioner (K. Kavitha) in view of the allegations against her, what is its significance in the eyes of law? How big a crime can it be? You cannot make such arguments. You have to collect other evidence and then examine it thoroughly. We are leaving aside the retraction (of co-accused Arun Pillai's statement) and considering only the statement which has not been retracted from the legal point of view.”
…and Justice Gavai silenced the agencies
Justice Gavai also pulled up the ED and CBI for arguing on the bail plea as if the main hearing was going on. He instructed the lawyers representing the CBI and ED that the hearing on the bail plea cannot go on for hours, so they should keep their arguments in short words. The lawyers of both the agencies were repeatedly referring to the evidence found during the investigation while arguing against granting bail to Kavita. Then Justice Gavai, before reading the order, indicated that if they did not stop, comments would also be made on the behavior of the CBI and ED. He said in warning words, '(You would not want) any comment to be made on the behavior of the agencies.'
Earlier, while granting bail to AAP leader Manish Sisodia, the Supreme Court had reprimanded both these agencies. The Supreme Court had said that the accused cannot be kept in jail for an unlimited period of time by delaying the trial. The court had also said in Kavita's case that the period of detention should not be so long that it proves to be a punishment in itself. The Supreme Court has already reprimanded both the agencies on the issue of delay in investigation and filing of charge sheet. In such a situation, the question arises whether CBI and ED will now change their ways of working?