- Happy Eid al-Adha 2018: Wishes Images, Quotes, Messages, SMS, Greetings, Wallpaper, Photos, Pics
- Asian Games 2018 Live Streaming Day 4 Live Score and Updates: Ankita Raina confirms medal in Women's Singles Tennis; Manu Bhaker in 25m pistol final
- Kerala floods: On foreign aid, India follows policy set in tsunami aftermath
Appearing on behalf of Ishrat Jahan’s mother Shamima Kauser, two senior lawyers on Saturday objected to the application moved by two accused officers of the Intelligence Bureau (IB). The accused had challenged a special CBI court order which took cognisance of a supplementary chargesheet and issued summons for their appearance.
Senior lawyer I H Syed argued before the special CBI court that summons issued by the court is valid as there is no need to take prior sanction from the government to prosecute government servants in cases of criminal conspiracy. He cited two judgments of the Supreme Court to prove that in such cases prior sanction under Section 197 of CrPC was not required.
The two IB officers — Rajeev Wankhede and Tushar Mittal — had challenged the order saying there were was no permission by the Centre to CBI to prosecute them. Besides Wankhede and Mittal, Mukul Sinha and former special director Rajinder Kumar were also accused. “This case is very peculiar… On what basis the chargesheet was not taken on record for so many years,” advocate Vrinda Grover argued.
Both of them also opposed the discharge application of former DGP P P Pandey.
PIL on Shah discharge in High Court
The Bombay Lawyers’ Association have moved in the Bombay HC a PIL against the CBI’s decision to not challenge BJP president Amit Shah’s discharge by a Sessions Court in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.