CBI’s plea for prosecution sanction questioned

The court also deferred hearing in the infamous bribery case to March 4 to hear arguments on the closure report filed by the CBI. “What was the harm in coming to the court on the grounds that no case is made out when you apparently did not seek sanction in the case?” questioned the court.

The court also said the stand of the CBI in the closure report was contradictory in itself. “The closure report says offence is made out. When the then Attorney General had opined that no offence is made out,then what was the need for the agency to seek sanction?” said the court.

“We were denied the sanction … Thus left with no option,we are seeking closure of the case. SP had written to the Department of Personnel and Training seeking sanction,but the same was declined,” submitted CBI public prosecutor BP Singh replying to the queries of the court.

Singh further submitted that the investigating agency had written a letter to the Centre’s Department of Personnel and Training in January 2009 seeking sanction for prosecution of alleged accused in this case.

The CBI pleaded that in this case,an offence is made out against the accused under Section 11 of the PC Act (taking valuable thing without consideration).

The case was then deferred to March 4 when it will be decided whether the closure report is to be accepted or rejected and also whether the protest petition to the closure report submitted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association is maintainable or not.

The case had rocked the Punjab and Haryana High Court after Rs 15 lakh in cash was “wrongly delivered” at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur on August 13,2008 following which she reported the matter to the police.

The police later arrested the (then) Haryana additional advocate general Sanjeev Bansal,a property dealer Rajiv Gupta and Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder Singh in this connection.