PATNA: Censuring CBI Director Joginder Singh for interfering in the multicore fodder scam probe and trying to scuttle it, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court today in a historic observation restrained Singh from meddling in any manner in the investigation. A report from New Delhi ‘Said Joginder Singh met Pome Minister Deve Gowda shortly after the Strictures were passed against him. The meeting, during which Minister of State for Law 5 makanat Khalap and some other top officials were also present, is understood to have considered various options before the Government, including Singh’s continuance in the post.
Justice S.N_Jha and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyaya directed that all reports by the officials entrusted with the investigation and supervision of the fodder scam be submitted to the court without being sent to the Director or any other authority. Both the judges were quite harsh with the actions of Singh’s interference in the investigation. They observed “it is one thing to edit part of the report, it is another thing to withhold whole of it. If the investigations is to be
“Monitored by the High Court how “2A the Director directs the CBI Officers, entrusted with the investigation to first get the report vetted by him and to withhold the report meant to be submitted before this court. The action of the Director verges on prime facie contempt of the court”.
While the judges described the conduct of Singh as amounting to contempt of court, they also passed analysis and evidences which exposed the conspiracy part of the scam. The judges observed the court has held that systematic loot of about one thousand crores rupees by way of fraudulent withdrawal from treasuries over the years could not be possible without the tacit support of the high ups in the government and secretarial level. The investigating agency in the circumstances is required to go into the conspiracy aspect of the case.
Justice Jha and Justice Mukhopadhyaya noted in their judgment “we have examined the two reports to find but if any attempt has been made to go into that aspect. The report of the DIG contains reference to raids, searches and seizures, summary of evidence against individual accused and suspect, but it does not at all reflect any awareness of conspiracy, but this part is also required to be gone into in the light of the judicial findings recorded by this court. The Joint Director on the other hand as is evident from his report has at least tried to go into the conspiracy aspect of the case.”
Article extracted from this publication >> October 9, 1996
