New Delhi: Delhi court raps the Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) for doing a shoddy investigation that forced the court to acquit the deputy director of Income Tax Department, on serious corruption charges.
The Court raises the serious questions on the working of CBI and asks its director to look into the matter and starts a probe against its officers, relating to the probe.’
The Court said investigating officer manipulated the facts and evidence. He willfully withheld some important evidence that forced the court to let off deputy director of income tax department US Dhyani and its two junior officers of the department. ‘”This kind of investigation raised serious doubt on the working of the CBI. It is also against the integrity to the premier investigating agency of the country,” the court said.
A resident of south Delhi’s Green Park area had approached CBI on 30th January 2004 stating that Deputy Director of IT Department came to his office along with two Junior officer- Ravinder Kumar Verma and Satya Prakash Garg- and alleged that he had tax liabelity worth 70 lakh. They also asked bribe of rupees 30 lakh to settle the matter. CBI arrested Ravinder Verma on 31st of January of taking the first installment of rupees three lakh.
Pointing serious flaw in the investigation the court said “on 31st of January, 2004, earlier in the day, CBI had registered Preliminary Enquiry (PE) and laid a trap in the evening on the basis of the complaint it got a day earlier. Why time and place of the trap laid on the same day were not mentioned in the PE that was registered earlier in the day”.
IO did not bother to satisfy himself whether the Phone number of Income Tax Deputy director was the same one as mention in the complaint. He did not even check the voice of another person who is audible in the recording of the trap.
“Seeing the FIR one could easily come up to the conclusion that it has tampered. In fact, it was not clear with the FIR that whether it was registered at 5 Pm in the evening or 11:15 Pm in the Midnight,” the court noted.
Judge further said the complainant in its complaint clearly mention that Income tax officers were demanding bribe on the account of huge tax liability on him. There was a possibility that complainant would have falsely implicated the IT officer who raided him for tax evasion. But IO did not bother to authenticate the complaint.