CBI looking at not calling witnesses repeatedly to agency office for questioning

The IOs will have to prepare detailed questionnaire covering all aspects that need to be covered during interrogation/examination of a particular witness

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is working on a mechanism which will ensure that the witnesses associated with its investigations aren’t summoned repeatedly to the agency office(s) for questioning, people familiar with the development said.

Representational image.

The move will help CBI avoid facing allegations of ‘unnecessary harassment’, they said.

Witnesses and suspects are called repeatedly, sometimes for consecutive days and weeks, by the investigation officers to seek clarification on a particular case or new developments. Some cases wherein witnesses were called repeatedly include 2G spectrum scam, coal scam cases and other high-profile cases like AgustaWestland scandal, corruption probe against former union minister P Chidambaram, Punjab National Bank scam involving Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi etc.

Without naming the case, an officer cited above said an employee of a public sector bank was called for questioning at least two dozen times in 2018 in a bank fraud case.

As part of the new strategy, which is a brainchild of the interim CBI director Praveen Sinha, the CBI will ask its investigating officers (IOs) to do their homework by studying the case thoroughly, collect relevant documentary evidence and analyse it in consultation with the law officers and branch heads before summoning any person, said the first officer cited above.

The IOs will have to prepare detailed questionnaire covering all aspects that need to be covered during interrogation/examination of a particular witness, and if required, send a questionnaire to the witness in advance as well, said another officer, who also didn’t want to be named.

“Obviously, the witnesses can be called as and when there is new evidence in a case but at the beginning of the probe, we should avoid calling people every day to seek clarification on small issues. It should be covered during couple of rounds (of questioning). Calling a person again and again shows poor preparation by the IO and the concerned branch,” said the second officer.

Such an exercise, third officer said, will not only help in removing contradictions in the testimony of same person during the trial but also help keep in check any effort by CBI officers to coerce people from giving statements to suit a narrative or extort them.

A senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer had proposed several years ago that CBI should video-record all the statements in every case but the plan never took off as it requires lot of resources and funding.

“Video recording is done in certain testimonies but recording every statement is not feasible,” said the third officer.

Former CBI joint director Neeraj Kumar said, “Be it CBI, Enforcement Directorate or any other investigation agency, this idea of calling people again and again for questioning should anyway be shunned. This mechanism is in order and there is no debate about it that IOs should do their work in advance before summoning anyone. It’s a welcome step by CBI interim chief”.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, who is defending several accused in CBI cases including 2G scam, coal scam, former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar and others, said - “It is a step in the right direction as in 2G case one of the reasons for acquittal was also delay in recording statement of witnesses as well as multiple statement of the same witnesses. In that case, before the arrest of (former telecom minister) A Raja, witnesses gave one statement, and after the arrest, the same witnesses took a contradictory stand”.

“Multiple statements of the same witness give the defence a chance to point out contradictions. In the Akshardham temple attack case of Gujarat, Supreme Court ordered acquittal because of the delay in recording the statement of witnesses. Also, CBI manual 2005 contemplates concept of plan of investigation in Para 14.18. So, if you have a plan then such multiple statements and delay is not required. Though on a lighter note, it would make our (defence counsels’) job a little more difficult,” he added.