Report not privileged document

CHANDIGARH, Sept 10: Dismissing the CBI's claim regarding DIG K.C. Kanungo's report to be a privileged document, UT Chief Judicial Magist...

CHANDIGARH, Sept 10: Dismissing the CBI8217;s claim regarding DIG K.C. Kanungo8217;s report to be a privileged document, UT Chief Judicial Magistrate Sant Parkash today directed the opening of the same quot;at the time of passing any order on the closure reportquot; in the 13-year-old Inderjeet Singh8217;s alleged murder case.

Pronouncing the orders in the open court, the CJM observed: quot;I am of the considered view that the public interest will be saved if the sealed cover containing the report of K.C. Kanungo is opened for the perusal of the court and it will be helpful in passing an order on the closure report of the CBI and the protest application of the complainantquot;.

He further observed: quot;No privilege can be claimed qua the report of K.C. Kanungo, who was appointed as investigating officer as per the directions of the court. The court has every right to look into the report.quot; Today8217;s order assumes significance as DIG Kunango, in a letter to director CBI, had stated that Inderjeet Singh had not committed suicide as claimed by the CBI8217;s earlier report, but had in fact been murdered. The report had allegedly indicted three local CBI officers also for passing on the murder as suicide.

Claiming the document to be privileged communication, the CBI8217;s deputy legal advisor J.S. Sidhu had earlier contended that the report was protected under the Indian Evidence Act.

He had further stated that the communication, made in official context and being a confidential document, could not be placed on the record. Moreover, the report was not the final one.An affidavit of Arvind Verma, Secretary, department of personnel and training, Government of India, regarding the privilege claim, had also been filed before the court.

The counsel for complainant Alah Singh, on the other hand, had argued that the report was not a privilege document and the court had every right to look into it. He had further contended that Kunango, in the report, had stated that it was a case of homicide, and not suicide, and Inderjeet was first murdered and then hanged with a soft turban. Further, the report had revealed the accused, Hardev Singh and Harpreet Singh, to be the real culprits.

He had further asserted that the closure report was not based on true facts and Kanungo8217;s report had not fully been discussed in it. The counsel had also stated that the DIG8217;s findings could not be ignored.