New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Sep 22, 2020-Tuesday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select Country
Select city
ADVERTISEMENT
Home / Chandigarh / 2017 graft case: Chandigarh DIG declines sanction to prosecute suspended SHO

2017 graft case: Chandigarh DIG declines sanction to prosecute suspended SHO

Informs CBI court that no substantive evidence has been placed on record by the CBI to prove the inspector’s involvement in the case.

chandigarh Updated: Aug 04, 2020 21:09 IST
Tanbir Dhaliwal
Tanbir Dhaliwal
Hindustan Times, Chandigarh

Stating that “no substantive evidence” has been placed on record by the investigating agency – the CBI, the UT deputy inspector general has refused to grant sanction to prosecute suspended SHO Jaswinder Kaur in a 2017 graft case.

A special CBI court on Tuesday adjourned the case to August 5.

Currently in judicial custody, the graft-tainted inspector had surrendered before a Chandigarh court on July 25 in another Rs 5 lakh graft case from May this year.

In October 2017, sub-inspector (SI) Mohan Singh was arrested for accepting Rs 2 lakh in bribe, allegedly on the directions of the then Sector 31 SHO, Jaswinder Kaur.

Inspector Jaswinder Kaur

Prem Singh Bisht, the complainant, had alleged that the SI, who was the investigating officer in an attempt to murder case, demanded Rs 9 lakh to drop the names of three of his employees from the FIR.

Bisht had alleged that the SI had told him that Rs 8 lakh were for the SHO and remaining Rs 1 lakh for him. The CBI had arrested the SI while accepting Rs 2 lakh bribe, but the case was closed against Kaur as the agency could not find any evidence to implicate her.

However, in the CBI court, the complainant had said that he was taken to SHO Kaur by the SI at Old Car Bazaar in Hallomajra, where a meeting had taken place and SHO had demanded money.

In 2019, Bisht had moved an application to declare Kaur an accused in the case, followed by another application in February 2020, where he stated he was being pressured by the SHO.

Taking cognizance of the applications, the court had directed CBI to place before the sanctioning authority (SSP, Chandigarh) all evidence, so that the authority could apply its own mind whether to give sanction for prosecution.

DIG’S RESPONSE

Responding five months from the date of order – February 13, DIG Omvir Singh Bishnoi stated that he had gone through all documents and was of the view that the “perusal of chargesheet also reveals that after laying the trap, accused Mohan Singh did not disclose that bribe was obtained by him on behalf of Jaswinder Kaur and he even refused to make call to her.”

He added, “As per chargesheet filed by CBI, there is no independent, oral, documentary or scientific evidence on record regarding direct demand of bribe by Kaur or on her behalf. The investigating agency further reveals that there is no evidence regarding her meeting with the complainant.”

The DIG mentioned that even in the contents of the application moved by Bisht, “no new fact has been brought into light”. Therefore, no substantive evidence has been placed on record by the CBI to prove her involvement.

“Thus, the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby declined,” his response stated.

ht epaper

Sign In to continue reading