‘Text message form; mobile necessary to file supplementary challan’
Clearing the air over the recorded conversation of subinspector Surinder Kumar, one of the accused in the Rs 70 lakh economic offences wing (EOW) graft case, with the co-accused or complainant, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has averred that the conversation, under examination at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, is in the form of text messages.punjab Updated: Jan 29, 2016 14:00 IST
Clearing the air over the recorded conversation of subinspector Surinder Kumar, one of the accused in the Rs 70 lakh economic offences wing (EOW) graft case, with the co-accused or complainant, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has averred that the conversation, under examination at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, is in the form of text messages.
After the CBI’s reply, the CBI special court has turned down the plea of the defence counsel to modify its January 7 order wherein the plea to release his mobile phone and identity card was turned down. Kumar had submitted an application on January 14, claiming there was no recorded conversation of the applicant with anyone, and thus “the court should modify its earlier order”. The court had observed the prosecution wanted to file a supplementary challan in the case after analysing the (CFSL) report regarding the recorded conversation on the mobile phone in question. SPS Bhullar, Kumar’s defence counsel, had averred the observation was beyond the record. Submitting its reply against the plea, the CBI had averred, “The conversation recorded on the mobile phone in question means the conversation through text messages. The averments of the application are incorrect to the extent that the observation of the court is beyond record. There is no recorded conversation of the applicant, but the said fact can’t be co-related to any patent error in the court order.”
The CBI further alleged the application filed by the accused-petitioner was clearly to confuse the ongoing situation, and a delaying tactic against framing of charges. The agency further prayed to dismiss the application being devoid of merits.
The CBI court, in its order, observed the accused’s application was not maintainable and the same was disposed of. “The order of the undersigned (CBI court) is not beyond record. The prosecution wants to file a supplementary challan in this case - the CBI Vs RC Meena - after analysing the CFSL report regarding the conversation already kept in the mobile phone in question,” stated the court in its January 25 order.
The order further read, “The conversation, including other materials, is available in the mobile phone in question. The prosecution has already mentioned that they have not recorded the conversation of the applicant, Surinder Singh. Hence, the conversation recorded means the material already available in his mobile.”
On August 12, Guneet had filed a complaint with the CBI in which she alleged that Deepa Duggal, a resident of Sector 9, in December, 2014, had got a case of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy registered against her father Gurkirpal Singh Chawla, mother Jagjit Kaur Chawla and brother Hamrit Singh Chawla with the EOW wing of the UT police. The case was being investigated by SI Surinder Kumar under the supervision of DSP, EOW wing, RC Meena.
Aman Grover is the son-in-law of Deepa and Sanjay is a friend of Aman, who had demanded Rs 75 lakh on behalf of DSP Meena and SI Surinder through Dahuja for not arresting her parents and brother, said the complainant.