RSS National Executive Member Shri Indresh Kumar served a legal notice to CBI through his advocate Meenakshi Lekhi on January 8 accusing it for “deliberately leaking” the so-called confession of Swami Aseemananda to media to jeopardise his reputation. “The deliberate leaking of a statement is not only politically motivated and clearly calculated in exciting feelings of hostility towards my client and contains substantial risk of serious prejudice to him jeopardising his reputation and denying him fair treatment,” the advocate said in the notice.
The notice drew the attention of CBI Director T Rajesh Balaji to Paragraph 3/211 of the Chapter VIII of the CBI Manual which says, “The method of investigation has not only to be “scrupulously straight forward” but “it should also have the appearance of being so.” The notice also drew the attention to the law relating to Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr. P.C.”) and Vineet Narain’s case wherein the Supreme Court held that CBI has to “adhere scrupulously to the provisions of the Manual in relation to its investigative functions.”
The notice alleged that the CBI deliberately leaked the Aseemananda’s statement under Section 164 CrPC to Tehalka and allowed wide publicity to Shri Indresh Kumar’s alleged allegation to Sunil Joshi maliciously suggesting his involvement in a crime with which he has no connection. “I presume you are aware that the statement is not a substantive piece of evidence even if the requirements of the Section are satisfied. In yet presenting the statement made by Aseemananda in the manner you have contrived shows your fairness is dubious and assessment of facts doctored to suit political purposes. The indications available from the record suggest that requirement of compliance of conditions precedent for attracting has in fact being observed in breach. You are not only in breach of law and your own Manual but are liable in addition under the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 for criminal contempt as the exercise undertaken by you is clearly intended to prejudice the minds of the public by deliberately presenting a statement the truth of which is not established as a fact. The repeated abuse of authority and misuse of law by you do not only render you liable in law as stated but also show how tainted your investigation is as also your predisposition towards my client. Your failure to obtain anything incriminating against my client despite questioning him has obviously increased your desperation at dissimulation of facts and circulating the same,” the notice said. (FOC)
Comments