Court rejects Zee Group editors' plea
The plea of two Zee Group editors for a court-monitored probe in the extortion case lodged against them by Congress MP Naveen Jindal has been rejected by a Delhi court which said they cannot be allowed to "dictate" and "divert" the course of investigation.delhi Updated: Feb 27, 2013 00:42 IST
The plea of two Zee Group editors for a court-monitored probe in the extortion case lodged against them by Congress MP Naveen Jindal has been rejected by a Delhi court which said they cannot be allowed to "dictate" and "divert" the course of investigation.
"I am of the considered opinion that there is no requirement for preservation of call details. Moreover, the accused cannot be allowed to dictate the terms of the investigation by moving such types of applications," additional chief metropolitan magistrate Mukesh Kumar said in a recent order.
"Accordingly, the application moved by the accused for monitoring and preservation of call details... as well as the application moved by the accused for monitoring of the investigation... are dismissed," the magistrate said.
The court said the plea for a court-monitored probe into a case arising out of the FIR lodged by complainant Naveen Jindal cannot be allowed.
Zee News editor Sudhir Chaudhary and Zee business editor Samir Ahluwalia had moved applications seeking a court-monitored probe in the case, besides preservation of call details of various persons including Naveen Jindal.
The editors had also sought a court's direction to preserve the call records of Sita Ram Jindal, Prithvi Jindal, Ravi Mutreja, Sushil Maru, Vivek Mittal, and Rajiv Badhoria.
They had alleged in their plea that the investigating officer (IO) in the case has not conducted the probe in a fair manner and, therefore, he be directed by the court to conduct the investigation in a fair and proper manner.
The court, while dismissing the plea of the editors, also said the accused scribes were "trying to dictate the terms of the investigation to the IO through a court order" and the IO is "within his right to conduct the investigation".