A Delhi court on Friday fixed March 11 for cross examination of a senior Delhi government official, who is a prosecution witness in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case in which Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and others are facing trial.
District Judge JR Aryan put up the matter for examination of Vishwendra Singh, the then deputy secretary (home) of city government and now private secretary to the Lt governor of Delhi, by the defence counsel after the witness informed the court that he has segregated the relevant documents, which the defence can see, from the file relating to sanction for prosecution of Kumar and three others.
Singh is a prosecution witness, who has been brought by CBI to prove that sanction was given to prosecute Sajjan Kumar and other accused under section 153A (causing disharmony between different communities) and 295 (injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class) of the IPC.
Sanction for prosecution of accused charged under section 153A of the IPC is mandatory.
The advocate appearing for the riot victims said that the defence counsel would be allowed to examine in the court itself the portion of file which has been permitted by the judge but they cannot take copy of the documents.
The court had earlier asked the witness to segregate the documents, which the defence can see and which they cannot see, from the sanction file. He was also asked to sort out the part of the file on which the official is claiming privilege.
Singh was earlier asked by the court to produce records relating to grant of sanction to prosecute Kumar and three other accused in the case.
He had, however, sought time to seek permission from the Lt governor's (LG) office for showing records of sanction of January, 1, 2010, and later on filed an affidavit seeking "privilege" for not producing the complete file containing official notings.
The affidavit was opposed by Kumar and others on the ground that the prosecution cannot withhold documents as the court has to see whether sanction granted by government to prosecute the accused was valid or not.