Latest news with #PreventionofCorruptionAct
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- General
- New Indian Express
Allahabad HC declares arrest of two accused in Chhattisgarh liquor scam as 'illegal'
Almost 11 months later, on June 18, 2024, Dhebar, who had been granted bail by the Chhattisgarh High Court, was again arrested by UP police just 20 minutes after his release in Raipur. Following the arrest, the Investigation Officer (IO) applied for a transit remand under Section 167 of CrPC before the magistrate at Raipur and it was granted for 48 hours. Subsequently, Dhebar was produced before the special judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) of Meerut, who remanded him to judicial custody until July 1, 2024. Finally, Dhebar moved Allahabad High Court and his plea was clubbed with the petition filed by the other accused ex-IAS officer Anil Tuteja who was arrested separately in the connection with the same case. As both the petitions sought the court to declare their arrest illegal, they were heard together by the court. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General for the state submitted that since there was a memo of arrest and the son of the petitioner Dhebar had been informed about the arrest, the arrest could not be held illegal as the reason for it was known to the petitioner. The bench however was not satisfied with the Additional Advocate General's contention, and it stated that neither in the memos of arrest nor in the information given to Dhebar's son or in the remand orders were given the ground of arrest communicated to the petitioners. Furthermore, the court also observed that the petitioners were given no opportunity of hearing to oppose the custodial remand. The court concluded that the petitioners were never furnished the grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 50 of CrPC. Declaring their arrests illegal, the court refused to interfere with the charge-sheet submitted by the investigation officer. The Court, however, clarified that the proceedings following law as per the charge-sheet may continue in the case.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- General
- The Hindu
Cash row: Mumbai lawyers body writes to CJI, seeks prosecution of Justice Yashwant Varma
Bombay Lawyers Association has written to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai seeking sanction to prosecute High Court judge Yashwant Varma over the discovery of huge cash from his official residence when he was in Delhi. The judge was transferred to Allahabad High Court amidst the raging controversy. Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna had recently written to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, besides sharing with them the report of the apex court-appointed committee reportedly indicting Varma and the judge's response. Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) in its letter dated June 2 and signed by president Ahmad M. Abdi and secretary Eknath R. Dhokale sought the sanction to prosecute the judge besides referring to the top court rejecting a PIL on the issue on May 21. Also Read | Justice Yashwant Varma cash row: Supreme Court rejects RTI plea for in-house panel report, CJI's letter to President, PM The top court called it "premature" and dismissed the PIL seeking an FIR over the matter and asked the petitioners to approach appropriate authorities instead. The lawyers' body said, 'It needs to be kept in mind that litigants and other lay persons are active stakeholders in the legal process. The applicant is seeking your sanction to initiate criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court, under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence.' The letter referred to the apex court's landmark ruling in K Veeraswami case of 1991 which mandates that no criminal case be registered against a sitting judge of the high court or Supreme Court without the CJI's prior approval. The 1991 judgement, the letter went on to say, held that judges of the high courts and Supreme Court are 'public servants' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and liable for prosecution for offenses such as possession of disproportionate assets. Also Read | Supreme Court assures communication of CJI's action on inquiry panel report on Justice Yashwant Varma The judgment further clarified that President was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but such sanction must be based on the advice of the CJI, it added. 'The allegations, supported by photographic and video evidence shared by the Delhi Police Commissioner, have raised serious concerns about judicial probity and public trust in the judiciary. The failure to register an FIR, despite the inquiry committee's findings, risks undermining the principle of equality before the law and the credibility of the judicial institution,' it said. The letter, aside from seeking sanction to prosecute the judge, sought a direction to authorities, including Delhi Police or the CBI to preserve all relevant evidence, including the partially burnt currency notes, photographs, and video recordings. The bar body also sought a copy of the in-house inquiry committee report to enable it to file the complaint. Also Read | Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea seeking FIR against Justice Varma The Supreme Court-appointed panel analysed the evidence and recorded the statements of more than 50 people, including Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora and the Delhi Fire Services chief, who were among the first responders to the fire incident at Justice Varma's official Lutyens' Delhi residence at around 11.35 pm on March 14. Justice Varma was then a judge in the Delhi High Court and repeatedly denied the allegations in his responses to the Delhi High Court chief justice and the panel. The in-house procedure entails the CJI writing to the president and the prime minister for impeachment after the advice to the judge to resign is not complied with. 'Chief Justice of India, in terms of the in-house procedure, has written to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India, enclosing therewith copy of the three-member committee report dated May 3 along with the letter/response dated May 6 received from Justice Yashwant Varma,' the apex court said on May 8. Also Read | Allahabad High Court Bar Association welcomes Centre's move to impeach Justice Yashwant Verma The committee confirmed the cash-discovery allegations against Justice Varma in its inquiry report, the sources previously said. The three-member panel comprised Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Anu Sivaraman of the Karnataka High Court. The report was finalised on May 3. Sources also said former CJI Khanna had nudged Justice Varma to step down in view of the findings in the report forwarded to the judge for his response, in line with the principle of natural justice. The controversy led to several steps, including a preliminary inquiry by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya, judicial work being taken away from Justice Varma in the Delhi High Court and later, his transfer to the Allahabad High Court sans judicial work. Also Read | Cash discovery row: CJI Khanna sends inquiry panel report on Justice Yashwant Varma to President, PM Modi On March 24, the apex court collegium recommended the repatriation of Justice Varma to his parent, Allahabad High Court. On March 28, the top court asked the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma.
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- General
- New Indian Express
Cash row: Mumbai lawyers body writes to CJI, seeks prosecution of judge Yashwant Varma
NEW DELHI: Bombay Lawyers Association has written to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai seeking sanction to prosecute high court judge Yashwant Varma over the discovery of huge cash from his official residence when he was in Delhi. The judge was transferred to Allahabad High Court amidst the raging controversy. Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna had recently written to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, besides sharing with them the report of the apex court-appointed committee reportedly indicting Varma and the judge's response. Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) in its letter dated June 2 and signed by president Ahmad M Abdi and secretary Eknath R Dhokale sought the sanction to prosecute the judge besides referring to the top court rejecting a PIL on the issue on May 21. The top court called it "premature" and dismissed the PIL seeking an FIR over the matter and asked the petitioners to approach appropriate authorities instead. The lawyers' body said, "It needs to be kept in mind that litigants and other lay persons are active stakeholders in the legal process." "The applicant is seeking your sanction to initiate criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, against Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court, under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence," it added. The letter referred to the apex court's landmark ruling in K Veeraswami case of 1991 which mandates that no criminal case be registered against a sitting judge of the high court or Supreme Court without the CJI's prior approval. The 1991 judgement, the letter went on to say, held that judges of the high courts and Supreme Court are "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and liable for prosecution for offenses such as possession of disproportionate assets. The judgment further clarified that President was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but such sanction must be based on the advice of the CJI, it added.
Hindustan Times
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC asks ACB if it will reconstitute probe team against staffer accused of bribery
The Delhi high court on Monday asked the anti-corruption branch (ACB) whether it was willing to reconstitute the special investigation team probing a case against a court staffer accused of soliciting bribes for facilitating bail, by replacing the additional commissioner of police (ACP) against whom the staffer had earlier raised concerns. The suggestion came from a bench of justice Tushar Rao Gedela after senior advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for the staffer, Mukesh Kumar, and assisted by Ayush Jain, submitted that the officer named in a complaint filed by Kumar in January was now part of the team investigating him. ACB's standing counsel, Sanjeev Bhandari, confirmed the inclusion of the ACP in the probe team. Kumar, in January, had sought a transfer, alleging threats from the ACP, including being falsely implicated in a criminal case. Taking note of these submissions, justice Gedela told Bhandari: 'Then there is a big problem. We advise you to think about this. We are nobody to direct this... it must not just be transparent, but also seen to be transparent. He (Kumar) may be right or wrong, but we are testing your credibility. Therefore, remove that bias. Even if there is an apprehension, remove that apprehension. Resolve that and come back on Friday.' While advising the ACB to review the composition of its investigation team, the judge also noted that prima facie material appeared to implicate Kumar, and cautioned that serious consequences would follow if he were found guilty. 'As of now, subject to your arguments, there appears to be something implicating you. This is our prima facie opinion. We're not going to brook any kind of corruption. If we find that a staffer is doing something he is not supposed to do, we will act accordingly. This is an institution. We are not going to tolerate misconduct by our staff,' Justice Gedela told Mathur, listing the matter for further hearing on June 6. The ACB had registered a first information report (FIR) against Kumar (38) on May 16 under Section 7 (public servant taking bribe) and Section 13 (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 61 (criminal conspiracy) and 308 (extortion) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Kumar was posted in the court of a special judge at Rouse Avenue Court. On May 20, four days after the FIR was filed, the Delhi high court transferred the special judge of that court to the North West district 'with immediate effect.' The judge had been presiding over the Special ACB Court, which handles Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion cases. In January, prior to filing the FIR, the ACB had written to the Delhi government's law secretary seeking sanction to prosecute both Kumar and the judge. This request was forwarded to the high court, which in February declined to grant sanction against the judge, citing insufficient evidence. However, the ACB was allowed to continue its probe and advised to return with further material, if available. The court made its observations while hearing two petitions filed by Kumar. One challenged a city court's May 22 order denying him anticipatory bail; the other sought quashing of the FIR and transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Kumar alleged in his plea that the FIR was a 'counterblast' to judicial orders by the judge threatening contempt proceedings against ACB officials. He claimed the ACB, a principal litigant in several pending matters before the judge, had acted vindictively and that its officers had threatened him with dire consequences, prompting his earlier request for transfer. On May 27, the high court declined to grant Kumar interim protection from arrest, citing the seriousness of the allegations.
India Gazette
a day ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Land for Jobs case: CBI commences arguments on charges in land for job case against Lalu Prasad, others
New Delhi [India], June 2 (ANI): The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday began its arguments on charges in the land for job scam case, in which former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, his family members, former public servants, and candidates are accused. Yadav is alleged to have granted railway jobs in exchange for land parcels from candidates or their relatives, either as gifts or at significantly reduced prices. Special judge Vishal Gogne heard the submissions by senior advocate DP Singh alongwith advocate Manu Mishra, who appeared for the CBI. CBI's counsel gave a brief overview of the case and submitted that there is a sanction to prosecute Lalu Prasad Yadav and public servants in this case. It was further submitted that there is sufficient material evidence to frame charges against the accused persons for the offence they are chargesheeted. Delhi High Court has already rejected the plea of Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking a stay on trial court proceedings. The Delhi High Court on May 31 dismissed a plea by RJD chief and former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav. Justice Ravinder Dudeja had ruled that Yadav remains free to present his arguments before the trial court at the charge consideration stage, stating there were no compelling reasons to halt proceedings. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the CBI failed to obtain mandatory prior approval before proceeding with its inquiry. He contended that while approval was secured for others, it was not obtained in his case. The CBI, opposing the petition on maintainability grounds, had argued that a sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not required. It further stated that while a sanction under Section 19 was necessary, it had already been obtained. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have investigated former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, his family, and several others in connection with the land-for-jobs case. (ANI)
