Madhuresh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
1998 Latest Caselaw 538 Del

JUDGMENT

Jaspal Singh, J.

1. The petitioner had made a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation against Sita Ram Kesri, levelling serious charges of corruption. Feeling aggrieved by the enquiry conducted by the Central Bureau of Inves-tigation, he filed a writ petition. A Division Bench of this Court, after monitoring the 'status reports', declined, on March 4, 1997, to issue mandamus and disposed of the writ petition observing:-

"We hope and trust that Central Bureau of Investigation will complete its preliminary investigation of all aspects, which are before it in the light of principles laid by the Supreme Court to which we have referred to above."

Subsequent to the said order, petitioner, feeling concerned with press reports quoting the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, to the effect that "it was just an enquiry, which had been finished and report submitted to the Delhi High Court", wrote to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, seeking clarification as to whether the investigation had actually been closed or not. On not getting any response, the petitioner, through this petition and his supplementary affidavit of July 11, 1997, prayed for review and recall of the judgment dated 4.3.1997. Subsequently, on his prayer, the review petition was directed to be treated as an application for directions and notice was issued to the Union of India.

2. Consequent upon the notice, the Central Bureau of Investigation made available to us the record and submitted synopsis of how the matter had been proceeded with after the disposal of the writ petition. It also filed its formal affidavit-in-reply to the supplementary affidavit as well as to the review application, stating that the enquiry had not been closed, that the Central Bureau of Investigation had been looking into all the relevant aspects of all the allegations made and that the matter was still under legal scrutiny. In the affidavit dated 1.8.1997, it was stated that the evidence collected on the various issues was under legal scrutiny and a view would be taken by the Competent Authority thereafter.

3. At our insistence the Central Bureau of Investigation also submitted a status report with regard to the further inquiries made. We also monitored the preliminary investigation in respect of some of the matters raised in the review petition and the supplementary affidavit.

4. We find that certain allegations made by the petitioner regarding acquisition of wealth by relatives of Sita Ram Kesri and through him, were referred to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes for taking action and to revert to Central Bureau of Investigation, if anything warranting a probe by Central Bureau of Investigation emerged. We are dismayed to notice that despite reminders, there has been no response from the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Rather, the letters from the Central Bureau of Investigation were not even acknowledged. Almost similar is the fate of the allegations of FERA violations made by the petitioner which were referred to the Enforcement Directorate. The Enforcement Directorate initially stated that they had no information regarding the alleged violation. However, subsequently, a copy of the complaint made by one H.S. Hoon against Shri Ashok Jain was forwarded. The Central Bureau of Investigation again requested for the gist of allegations and the evidence, if any, of the involvement of Sita Ram Kesri in the matter on 5.3.1997. There has been no response from the Enforcement Directorate since then.

5. On the basis of the preliminary investigations made by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it has emerged that Amar Nath Kesri son of Sita Ram Kesari has assets beyond his known sources of income. These assets run not into thousands but lakhs. As regards the known assets of Sita Ram Kesri we have told that major expenses for maintenance of facilities and per-qui-site relatable to household expenses, including salary of domestic servants and those tending the cattle have been borne by the Congress Party. A sum of nearly Rs. 25.64 lakhs is stated. A sum of nearly Rs. 25.64 lakhs is stated to have been so spent by the Congress Party during September 1988 to November 1996. What further transpires is that some Bihar MLAs were allegedly offered bribe as consideration for voting for Sita Ram Kesri. Those MLAs have made statements to the Central Bureau of Investigation to that effect.

6. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, we feel impelled to issue the following directions:

(i) Let the Central Bureau of Investigation, while referring to our order, write again to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and to the Enforcement Directorate, to respond within two months. If they fail to, let their intransigence be brought to our notice.

(ii) Let the Central Bureau of Investigation inform the Income Tax authorities about the unexplained assets of the son of Sita Ram Kesri and know from the, within two months of the furnishing of the information, the action taken. If the Income Tax authorities fail to respond, let us know. In the meanwhile, let the Central Bureau of Investigation probe further as to whether the source of those huge assets is relatable to Sita Ram Kesri.

(iii) Let the Central Bureau of Investigation examine the income tax returns of Sita Ram Kesri and Congress Party for the relevant period to know as to whether disbursement of Sita Ram Kesri's household expenses by the party is borne out from there or not? A complete statement be submitted to us.

(iv) The Central Bureau of Investigation knows it too well that offering bribe to a public servant is an offence under the prevention of Corruption Act. Since some MLAs have directly alleged making of such offer in connection with the election of Sita Ram Kesri, should a case be not registered? Let the Central Bureau of Investigation give further thought to it and let us know the result. Of course, the petitioner, if unsatisfied with the conclusion reached by the Central Bureau of Investigation, may, if so advised, take recourse to such legal remedies as may be available to him.

The petition stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.