Ishrat encounter: Govt denied sanction, court took cognizance wrongly of two IB officers

In their review application in the sessions court, Wankhede and Mittal sought quashing of the summons on the ground that cognizance of chargesheet cannot be taken since it was not approved by the Union Home Ministry, which controls the IB.

Earlier, the court had reserved the order for pronouncement in January, but Raju sought more time for further argument. On Saturday, he submitted, “The IB officers are not involved in the murder, if at all it is murder, as alleged. They have only discharged their duties… even prosecution admits it that no sanction was granted. In that case, how could (the) magistrate have issued summons and say prosecution not needed?” Special Public Prosecutor for CBI R C Kodekar didn’t make further submission and told the special judge J K Pandya that he has already submitted what was required. Pandya reserved the order for pronouncement on March 31.

In the past, Kodekar had left it to the court. He had argued that the “court may pass appropriate order whether summons should be issued or not. The accused will have legal remedies.” The first chargesheet, filed in June 2013, was committed in the sessions court. This chargesheet includes former DGP P P Pandey, who was recently discharged; retired IPS officer D G Vanzara, who has filed discharge plea this week; IPS officer G L Singhal; retired SP N K Amin; Deputy SP Tarun Barot; and two others.