The CBI on Friday told a Delhi court that no fresh FIR has been lodged against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler on allegations of influencing witness and money laundering. Tytler had earlier been given a clean chit in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case.
The CBI’s reply came while responding to the court’s query on whether the agency had registered any case against Tytler under Sections 193 (punishment for false evidence), 195 A (threatening a person to give false evidence) of IPC and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“An application has been moved on behalf of victim to know from the CBI as to whether an FIR or separate complaint has been registered under Sections 193 and 195 of IPC and PMLA. In this regard, question has been asked by the court to the public prosecutor. He says no separate FIR has been filed. The application stands disposed of,” said Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler.
The court has now fixed the case for July 30 for filing of protest petition against the CBI’s third closure report giving clean chit to Tytler in the case.
Senior advocate H.S. Phoolka and advocate Kamna Vohra, who were representing the victims, sought four weeks' time to file the protest petition.
The court had earlier asked the CBI to respond to allegations that Tytler had allegedly tried to influence a witness by giving him money and sending his son abroad and also alleged hawala transaction. Phoolka had moved an application seeking a status report from the CBI as to what action it had taken on those allegations.
On the allegation of sending witness Surinder Singh Granthi to Canada, he said the documents were available with the CBI.
“These two are separate offences and CBI should tell [us] what action it has taken on these allegations. A separate case needs to be registered and action is to be taken on these two offences,” Mr. Phoolka argued.
The CBI prosecutor, however, said that victims’ counsel should file written arguments and the agency will reply as it was not possible to answer each and every question individually.
He said a closure report was earlier also filed by the agency and it was accepted by a magisterial court.
The order was challenged before a sessions court which had directed the CBI to examine several witnesses but addresses of some of them were not available.
Allegations of influencing witness and hawala transaction had surfaced from the statement of arms dealer and navy war room leak case accused Abhishek Verma, which was recorded before the court during the last hearing.
