Special Judge slaps Rs 10K cost on CBI for not responding to query in bank fraud case
New Delhi: A Special Judge (PC Act) in Delhi's Rouse Avenue court here has now imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for failing to explain to it why the agency had filed a chargesheet in a bank fraud case, where no public servant had been indicted and no charges under the PC Act were filed.
Special Judge Pulastya Pramachala on Thursday ordered the central agency to deposit the cost to the Delhi Legal Services Authority, directing that the order be placed before the concerned Joint Director of the CBI so that its orders are followed from hereon.
The case pertained to a bank fraud involving Alpine Realtech Pvt Ltd, accused of defrauding the Punjab and Sind Bank in Ashram Chowk here of over Rs 64 crore. According to the complaint filed by the bank, the company and its directors had falsely gained the trust of the bank to secure the credit line and then diverted the same to other accounts and defaulted on the repayments.
The CBI had filed a chargesheet against 23 entities in the case, none of them bank officials — and all of them charged under relevant sections of the IPC. The agency had also noted that prima facie involvement of bank officials had been found and that they are keeping the case open for further investigation.
While looking at the chargesheet, the Special Judge had noted in a January 22 order, "It is well apparent that none of the public servants have been charge sheeted at present, nor any accused is charge sheeted for offence punishable under P.C. Act. CBI shall explain, how this court is expected to take cognizance of IPC offences only, without there being any offence under P.C. Act? How does this court get jurisdiction to summon and try above mentioned accused persons?"
In this order, the court had directed the Investigating Officer of the case to file a written response by February 26, answering the legal query raised by it.
In the latest order of Thursday, the court noted that the IO had still not answered its queries and justified it by saying that the CBI was awaiting a response from concerned sanctioning authority on their request sought under Section 17A of PC Act.
The court said, "This approach of concerned officials of CBI including IO is actually disappointing and contemptuous," adding that the agency cannot ignore the court's directions of their "own sweet will and comfort" so that they can file a response whenever they please.
"This appears to be a deliberate inaction on the part of IO and other concerned officials of CBI, which cannot be appreciated by this court," the judge said, further noting that irrespective of pending sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act, the IO and the agency was "duty bound to respond to the queries raised by this court based on present situation".
