New Delhi, Oct 4 (UNI) The Delhi High Court today directed the trial Court to reconsider the case seeking CBI sanction against Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate Ashok Aggarwal in a disproportionate assets case within three months keeping the Failure of Justice clause in mind.
Justice V B Gupta set aside the special judge's order which had held the sanction, obtained from the Finance Ministry, to go ahead with a disproportionate assets case against Aggarwal as valid and said that the trial court has not considered the clause asking the court to reconsider the case under this clause.
Justice Gupta also directed the trial Court to record the findings in terms of clause(b) of sub section(3) and sub section(4) of Section 19 of the Act. The court said that the trial court did not keep in view the subsection relating to the question of Failure of Justice as envisaged in Section 19(3)(b)of the Act.
The High Court directed the trial court to examine the sanctioning authority as witness and decide the case within three months.
The Court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on October 6, 2007.
Ashok Aggarwal had filed a revision petition in the High Court seeking a fair trial stating that the CBI had procured a wrong sanction to frame him in the case.
The CBI had obtained a sanction from the Finance Ministry on November 26, 2002 before filing a chargesheet against Aggarwal as this was the condition precedent for taking cognizance for offence under Section 13 of the Act. The chargesheet was filed under Section 120-B, 109, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
The petitioner alleged that the CBI chargesheet relied upon 366 witnesses whereas the SP's (CBI) report mentioned only 278 witness.
Eighty eight witnesses were not even mentioned in the report and statement of not a single witness was sent to the sanctioning authority. The chargesheet had 1220 documents whereas the SP's report only mentioned 282 documents. Thus 938 documents were withheld by sanctioning authority, including documents of Aggarwal's income tax papers.
Despite sanctioning authority specifically asking for the record, CBI had refused to send them saying that the case is sub-judice.