PATNA: The Central Bureau of Investigations special leave petition (SLP), which was filed in the Supreme Court, has erroneously claimed that Bureau’s Joint Director U.N. Biswas had disregarded an instruction by the headquarter to clarify certain contradictions in his report which was to be submitted in the Patna High Court. In its petition, the CBI has held that since Mr. Biswas did not comply with the direction to report to Delhi to clarify discrepancies in his report, Director Joginder Singh had to approve the report of the DIG for submission in the High Court. The contention of the CBI is, however, based on blatant misrepresentation of facts. Records show that Mr. Biswas was never given an Option to discuss his report with the Director before the DIG’s report was submitted before the Patna High Court. A fax message, sent by the CBI headquarters on October 2 at 10:35 a.m., is a clear testimony to this. The message addressed to Mr. Biswas read: “Refer your fax message No. 19/JD (1) 96camp Patna, Mated October 1, 1996 and DIG/ CBI Patna’s consolidated report dated September 27, 1996 regarding fodder scam cases. The report approved by the Director and the legal division, is reproduced herewith for filing in the honorable High Court at Patna. The role of “””) needs close scrutiny. As such you should send the relevant records, if any, and bring them all along with the DIG, SP and concerned DLA (deputy legal advisor) for scrutiny. Decision on this aspect will be communicated in the quickest possible time of your ensuring compliance to this. This fax message finds mention in the High Court order on October 7 which debarred Director Joginder Singh from meddling in the probe, and gave a free hand to Mr. Biswas to handle the investigation. The names in the bracket has been omitted by Justices $.N. Jha and S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, but sources in the CBI said that the deleted name referred to Chief Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav. The important point about the fax message is that it is in the form of fait accompali to the Joint Director to forward the report of the DIG to the High Court. There is no question of Mr. Biswas disregarding the directive of the headquarters leading to the replacement of his report by the DIG’s report because the fax message had instructed him to file the DIG’s report which was approved by the Director and the legal division, As far as Mr. Biswas’s not going to Delhi is concerned, the Patna High court, by its order on October 7, had refrained the headquarters from meddling in the probe. So there are no justified reasons why Mr. Biswas should have gone to Delhi to consult the Director on the investigation. Moreover, Mr. Joginder Singh had never asked Mr. Biswas to come to Delhi after the High Court’s judgment, even though he used to frequently summon SPs and the DIG to Delhi.
Article extracted from this publication >> October 30, 1996
