High court throws out DRI plea to transfer trial court case against it
Delhi High court has thrown out the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’s (DRI) plea to transfer a case involving the alleged abduction and interrogation of six businessmen arrested for allegedly evading duty in excess of Rs 20 crore, from a trial court, citing favouritism, reports Sumit Saxena.delhi Updated: Dec 14, 2009 00:38 IST
Delhi High court has thrown out the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’s (DRI) plea to transfer a case involving the alleged abduction and interrogation of six businessmen arrested for allegedly evading duty in excess of Rs 20 crore, from a trial court, citing favouritism.
Cancelling the transfer application a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ajit Bharihoke said the concerned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ajay Pandey has recorded some “prima facie” observations in the matter.
Dismissing the arguments by Additional Solicitor-General Mohan Parasaran along
with Satish Aggarwala, counsel for DRI, the high court said that the magistrate will come to an independent final finding, so all the detainees in the present case would appear before him.
DRI officials had on October 28 arrested six businessmen — Harmesh Arora (34), Harish Choudhry (29), Sarfaraz Ahmed (36), Bhopal Singh (31), Pradeep Kumar Mangalik (50) and Gopal Sharma (27) for allegedly running a fraudulent export syndicate, and evading duty of
Rs 20.86 crore. Reacting to the application filed Harmesh Arora, Pandey, in an order dated October 30 said “I have observed several discrepancies in the documents related to the arrest of the accused.”
DRI counsel Aggarwala had objected to the questioning of the DRI official inside the courtroom.
Defence counsel Pradeep Jain had contended: “The accused were kept in illegal detention for extorting confession. All the documents filed are forged and fabricated”.
Slamming the DRI officials the Pandey had said: “I feel extreme pain in taking cognisance of the prima facie
of illegal detention of the accused”.
Reacting to the conduct of the DRI official’s investigation, the magistrate had said: “I am failing in my duty if I ignore the appearing violation of the citizen’s right by the public servants.”
Speaking to HT, DRI counsel Aggarwala said: “I will not make comments as the matter is subjudice”