A Delhi court on Saturday reserved its order on an application filed by the prosecutor seeking direction with regard to a chargesheet prepared by police against Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case and never produced before a judicial officer.
Additional Sessions Judge V.K. Goyal said the order on whether directions could be issued to police to file the chargesheet before a competent court would be passed on May 21.
The court had on April 21 said the chargesheet against the former outer Delhi MP in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots case citing sufficient evidence to proceed against him was prepared but never brought before a judge to seek his prosecution.
“The chargesheet was prepared in the case based on FIR number 67/87 in police station Nangloi, naming Sajjan Kumar as accused on April 8, 1992, but it was dumped in the police file and never brought before the court,” Special Public Prosecutor had B.S. Joon submitted before the court.
The FIR was clubbed with another riots case in which the trial was going on before the court, he had said.
During the arguments, senior counsel H.S. Phoolka, appearing for the riot victims, submitted the chargesheet should be filed before the court concerned and summons be issued against the accused to face trial.
The Special prosecutor, appointed by the Delhi High Court to deal with the 1984 riots cases, also told the court that the chargesheet specifically mentioned that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against Kumar but no action was taken against him stating that his arrest may create law and order problem.
Additional DCP Rajiv Ranjan, who appeared before the court to give an explanation on the matter, said the two cases relating to the incidents were clubbed on the legal opinion provided by the prosecution branch.
Prosecutor Joon said the police were not empowered to club cases and it was the sole prerogative of the court to decide such issues.
The prosecution had sought details of the two riots cases registered at Nangloi police station in 1987 and 1991.
The two cases were clubbed by the Investigating Officer and the name of the politician figured in one of the FIRs.
The prosecutor had alleged non-prosecution of the accused named in the FIR would amount to “miscarriage” of justice.
