1984 riots: Court seeks clarifications, reserves order on pleas

A Delhi court on Thursday sought clarifications from the CBI and defence counsel on pleas of three accused facing trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, who, along with Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, are seeking transfer of the case on the ground of jurisdiction.

A Delhi court on Thursday sought clarifications from the CBI and defence counsel on pleas of three accused facing trial in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, who, along with Congress leader Sajjan Kumar, are seeking transfer of the case on the ground of jurisdiction.

District Judge Rakesh Siddhartha, who recently took charge of the court, after seeking clarifications fixed the matter for February 20 for pronouncing order on the pleas.

"Today the matter was fixed for orders. However, some clarifications were required. To come up for clarifications/ orders on February 20," the court said.

The judge said the case was earlier marked to this court by order of the then district judge and he cannot supersede that order.

"I, being a district judge, cannot supersede the order of another district judge. As a district judge, at this juncture, can I transfer the case? Do I have the power to send it to the other court," the judge asked, to which the counsel for the CBI and accused replied in the negative.

Sajjan Kumar, Brahmanand Gupta, Peeriya and Ved Prakash are facing trial on charges of murder and rioting in a case of killing of Surjit Singh in Sultanpuri area of West Delhi.

The pleas were moved by Gupta, Peeriya and Ved Prakash for transfer of the case from Karkardooma district court in East Delhi to Rohini district court on ground of jurisdiction.

CBI prosecutor D P Singh said as per the provisions of CrPC, a district judge does not have the power to transfer a case from his division to another as such power lies only with the high court.

He argued that a similar riot case, also involving Sajjan Kumar and others, was earlier decided by the same court but the accused had not raised the transfer issue then, which showed "malafide intention and malice" on their part.

Advocate Anil Kumar Sharma, who was representing Gupta and Peeriya, argued that the court should implement the Delhi High Court's 2013 order asking sessions judges to transfer the cases as per their jurisdiction.