Probe Ranjit Sinha’s meetings with coal scam accused, rules Supreme Court

It asked the Central Vigilance Commission to respond on July 6 on the manner of an inquiry against Sinha.

THE FIRST BREAK | The Indian Express front page story of September 4, 2014.

The Indian Express had reported last year that on several days in 2013 and 2014, Sinha met with a number of people named in cases that were being investigated — or which had been investigated — by the agency.

[related-post]

A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A K Sikri held it to be a matter of “considerable concern” that neither Sinha nor the CBI denied these contentious meetings with the accused, including Congress MP Vijay Darda, without the presence of the investigating team.

“There cannot at all be any justification for him to meet any accused person in a criminal case where investigation is underway, without the investigating officer being present, whether it is in his office or as alleged by advocate Prashant Bhushan, at his residence and that too, allegedly, several times including late at night,” the bench said.

Arguing for NGO Common Cause, Bhushan had alleged that entries in the visitors’ register of Sinha disclosed he was meeting the high-profile accused and those associated with coal block allocation like Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda and others to influence the probe.

Taking note of an order passed by a different bench last November to remove Sinha from the 2G spectrum allocation probe owing to these meetings, the bench said Sinha’s private meetings “disturbs us with regard to the fairness of the investigations” and hence “further inquiry is necessary.” Sinha retired less than a fortnight after he was removed from 2G probe.

The bench rejected an argument by Sinha’s counsel and CBI that a further probe should not to be ordered since the 2G bench had not issued any such directive.

Citing the visitor’s diary and CBI file noting relating to the probe against Darda, it termed Sinha’s contentions as “completely misplaced” that nothing was on record to suggest attempts to scuttle the investigation.

The bench dismissed Sinha’s plea to initiate proceedings against Bhushan and office-bearers of the NGO for levelling baseless allegations on oath in their attempts to mislead the court. It said that the CBI file noting adduced by Bhushan “speak for themselves” and whosoever gave it to the counsel was a whistle-blower, who had to be protected for his action in public interest.

The bench said that the responsibility to ensure an innocent person is not subjected to a criminal trial is coupled with an equally high degree of ethical rectitude required of an investigating officer to ensure probe is conducted in all fairness, not only to the accused persons but also to the victim of any crime, whether the victim is an individual or the state.

Sinha and the CBI had claimed that these meetings never impacted decision-making in the coal cases, and claimed the petitioners were seeking to settle personal scores with Sinha.