Delhi Court Orders Investigation Against CBI Officer in Excise Policy Case
Court Directs Inquiry into CBI Officer's Conduct
On Friday, a court in Delhi mandated a departmental investigation against a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officer involved in the probe of the Delhi Excise Policy case. This ruling comes as all 23 defendants, including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, were acquitted. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court ordered an inquiry into the investigating officer (IO), who allegedly designated government employee Kuldeep Singh as the primary accused. At the time, Singh was serving as the Deputy Commissioner of Excise.
Concerns Raised Over Investigation Process
Judge Singh expressed in court that he was recommending a departmental inquiry regarding the designation of Singh as A1. He emphasized that there was no evidence to support this claim, reiterating that the accusations lacked substantiation. In a detailed order, the judge noted that the IO's investigation appeared premeditated and choreographed, with allegations against the government employee lacking impartiality and seemingly crafted to fit a pre-existing narrative. The court also raised serious concerns about the IO's approach, which included listing certain individuals as suspects while simultaneously identifying them as government witnesses in the charge sheet.
Contradictions in the Investigation Process
The court specifically mentioned the then Excise Commissioner Arva Gopi Krishna and Deputy Commissioner Anand Kumar Tiwari, who were listed as suspects. It pointed out that Krishna was simultaneously identified as government witness number 74, highlighting the troubling nature of this contradiction. The court stated that such inconsistencies could not simply be dismissed as procedural errors, indicating a deliberate attempt by the investigating officer to manipulate the narrative. This raised concerns about the reliability of the prosecution's case, suggesting that the officer was attempting to maintain flexibility in case the judicial review did not support the presented version.
Anticipatory Manipulation Identified
The court underscored that this dual positioning clearly indicated the investigating officer's awareness of the inherent vulnerabilities in the allegations from the outset. There was apprehension that the version presented might not withstand rigorous judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the court noted that the CBI officer's methods revealed anticipatory manipulation, designed to protect the investigator rather than assist the court in uncovering the truth. It concluded by ordering departmental action against the errant CBI officer to ensure accountability and maintain trust in the investigative process.