Skip to main content

CBI To Minimize the Harassment on Witnesses Caused By Constant Questioning

 A group of people linked with the development said that The Central bureau of Investigation(CBI) is nowadays functioning on the practice of to ensure that the witnessed linked with its cases are not been called for questioning purpose on day to day basis to avoid the allegations of harassment that were being imposed on CBI .

Witnesses were called every single day in many cases like 2G coal spectrum scam, and other high profile cases like the one Punjab national bank scan associated with Nirav modi and Mehul choksi and the corruption case against former union minister of India P Chidambaram and the Sushant Singh rajput case. Witnesses of these cases were called everyday for investigation and clarification of the various issues linked to these cases.

Whilst maintaining the anonymity of the case an officer cited that employee of a public sector bank was called dozens for times in the year of 2018 for the purpose of investigation in a case of bank fraud. 



CBI director Praveen Sinha proposed a new strategy that any investigating officer must only question a witness after the whole case is studied thoroughly and all the evidences are collected to avoid the unnecessary harassment of any witness.

An officer while keeping the identity hidden said that IO's must prepare a questionare before the investigation and even send a copy of that questionare to the concerned parties in advance.

An officer said “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,”.

Earlier a former Indian police service officer suggested to video record all the interrogations to avoid any sought of confusion or false plays later but this couldn’t be fulfilled as recording each and every statement needs a larger budget and resources.

Neeraj kumar, former CBI joint director 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”.

The layer of accused parties or some of a major scam i.e. 2G coal scam, Vijay Aggarwal Advocate 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”.

Further he added that “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,”

Related News - vijay aggarwal advocate internship

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Vijay Aggarwal Advocate Internship News

Golden opportunity  to get  Vijay Aggarwal Advocate Internship . Get trained under the guidance of senior people. Law/ Legal -  Metropolitan Law Firm START DATE -  As early as  DURATION -  1 Month COMPENSATION - Certification APPLY BY -  Earliest About Internship With  vijay aggarwal metropolitan law firm Those who will be selected will manage day-to-day responsibilities like handling research-based work. Mentored by senior advocates and lawyers.  Who can apply for  vijay aggarwal's metropolitan law firm Should be good at multitask  Should be available for 30 days  Should possesses  skills and interests Perks Certification Number of openings 3

Mehul Choksi gets temporarily stay in FEO proceedings by Bombay High Court

  Enforcement Directorate faced a major setback in its probing against absconder businessman Mehul Choksi as the Bombay High Court has stayed the proceedings for a temporarily period under the fugitive economic offender’s act of 2018.     Choksi is presently situated in Antigua and Barbuda after he fled from India in January 2018. He has denied returning whereas officials are seeking his extradition with the Caribbean legal authorities.   Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the special court in Mumbai is hearing the proceedings to declare Choksi a fugitive economic offender in the Punjab National Bank (PNB). It is a scam worth Rs 13,500 crores. His properties of abroad can be seized by the officials, under the Fugitive Economic Offender act.      Special Prevention of Money Laundering Act Court has received order from the Bombay High Court that it will not pass the final order on the application filed by ED to declare Mehul Choksi a “Fu...

Court Outlines Notice To Mahua Moitra In Defamation Case by Zee News

Notice against Mahua Moitra, Lawmaker, Trinamool Congress (TMC) has been framed by a Delhi court in the defamation case. The case was filed by Zee Media Corporation Limited. The notice was framed against Moitra for supposedly making defamatory expressions against Zee Media in the complex of the Parliament.   A criminal complaint against Moitra was filed by Zee Media Corporation under Section 499 and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter was heard by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) at a special court designated for MLAs and MPs. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal argued on the matter along with one more Advocate Yugant Sharma. According to the rules issued by the Supreme Court, such issues are to be finished up within one year. The offense of defamation attracts imprisonment which may reach out as long as two years.