Jasbir did not respond to notices : CBI

New Delhi, Dec 18 (UNI) The Central Bureau of Investigation today said it made all possible efforts to examine Jasbir Singh, the alleged witness in the 1984 anti-sikh riots, but he did not respond to its notices.

In a statement issued tonight, after a local court today ordered reinvestigation into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case involving former Union Minister Jagdish Tytler, the investigating agency said, ''CBI is committed to carry out a transparent, fair and impartial investigation to arrive at the truth. Jasbir will be duly examined by CBI as and when he appears before it.

''However, he has not indicated the date on which he would make himself available in India for his examination.'' The statement said after broadcast of interview of Jasbir Singh by certain TV Channels, the CBI obtained the telephone number and address of Jasbir Singh in USA from the TV channels.

It said that on December 3, the investigating officer contacted Jasbir Singh on telephone in the USA to indicate the date on which he would appear before the CBI for examination.

Jasbir Singh, however, was evasive and asked CBI to contact his counsel one Gurpatwant Singh Pannu in the US.

When the matter came up for hearing in the court on December 6, CBI made a request to the court to ask Jasbir Singh's Counsel Nav Kiran Singh to confirm the address of Jasbir Singh as given to CBI by TV channels.

''The court directed the Counsel of Jasbir Singh to confirm the address and ordered as follows:- ''Since the witness has allegedly been residing in USA, let the witness/counsel disclose how he can join the investigation.'' The matter was then adjourned to December 18, the statement added.

On December 7, CBI issued a notice u/s 160 Cr.PC to Jasbir Singh to join investigation through his counsel Gurpatwant Singh Pannu on fax/e-mail. However, no communication has been received from Jasbir Singh or his counsel so far regarding joining of investigation by him.

''Today, the court dismissed the petition of Advocate of Jasbir Singh for supply of copy of chargesheet along with accompanying documents for filing a protest petition. The court also brought on record that CBI is ready to examine the said witness if he is willing to join the investigation and observed as follows :- ''Since this witness has allegedly seen the incident and had given affidavit before Justice Nanawati Commission and is willing to depose before CBI/join investigation, so in the light of the above developments, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be further investigated. Since the applicant is allegedly the witness, so the report along with the accompanying documents cannot be supplied to him,'' the central investigating agency said in the statement.

It said the court has also ordered, ''CBI is directed to further investigate the case and submit report by December 16, 2008. Ld.

Counsel for the applicant/witenss Shri Navkiran Singh is requested to apprise the applicant/witness to join the investigation.'' The CBI had last month filed a closure report in the case involving Mr Tytler citing non-availability of witnesses in the case.

The CBI statement said during investigation of this case, the agency made all possible efforts to contact him.

''The members of his family living in Delhi told CBI that he was living in the US but declined to give his contact address or telephone number. Hence, Jasbir Singh could not be examined by CBI.

''However, on November 29, 2007, it was mentioned before the court by Advocate H.S Phoolka, that he would furnish the address of Jasbir Singh by December 1 but no such address was furnished either to the court or to the CBI,'' the statement said.

Incidentally, Jasbir Singh, who had submitted an affidavit before Nanavati Commission on August 31, 2000, claiming he had over-heard Jagdish Tytler rebuking his men on the night of November 3,1984 near T.B. Hospital, Outram Lane, Delhi, for killing less number of Sikhs in his constituency, appeared on various TV channels when the court was hearing CBI's closure report in the case involving the former union minister.

UNI