1984 riots: | punjab$dont-miss | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 27, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

1984 riots: CBI ‘supports’ victims’ case transfer plea in HC

punjab Updated: Oct 12, 2015 22:55 IST
Press Trust of India
Central Bureau of Investigation

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday did not oppose in the Delhi high court the plea of some anti-Sikh riot victims, who are seeking the transfer of a related case to another court, alleging that the evidence is not being properly recorded.(HT Photo )

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday did not oppose in the Delhi high court the plea of some anti-Sikh riot victims, who are seeking the transfer of a related case to another court, alleging that the evidence is not being properly recorded.

The submission was made before justice Siddharth Mridul, who had stayed the trial court proceedings in the case allegedly involving Congress leader Sajjan Kumar.

“They (CBI) are not filing any affidavit. This indicates that they are not opposing their (victims) contention,” the judge recorded after the counsel for the agency wished not to file any response to the victims’ plea.

The CBI’s submission came in the backdrop of the court’s notice issued on the plea by complainant Joginder Singh, who said “the transfer of the case is imperative for meeting the ends of justice.”

Sajjan, co-accused Brahmanand Gupta and Ved Prakash, who were asked to respond to Joginder Singh’s allegation, said “such frivolous application, which is politically motivated, for transfer must be checked to ensure that ends of justice are not defeated” and the plea should have been moved before the trial court itself.

“The trial court is the court of the district and sessions judge and is competent, having jurisdiction to transfer the case to any competent court within his session,” Sajjan had said in his affidavit which was adopted by the other two co-accused.

Joginder Singh’s contention was supported by senior advocate HS Phoolka, who through an affidavit supporting the petition, gave instances where the correct version of the witness was allegedly not being recorded in the trial court.

The complainant has alleged that the presiding officer “on his own interpreted” what prosecution witness Sheela Kaur had said during the recording of her evidence.