New Delhi, April 28 (IANS) A Delhi court on Tuesday sentenced two CBI officials involved in a controversial search and arrest operation at the residence of a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer to three months’ imprisonment after earlier convicting them for assault, mischief and criminal trespass.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Shashank Nandan Bhatt of the Tis Hazari Courts awarded the sentence to Ramneesh, presently serving as Joint Director in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and V.K. Pandey, a retired Delhi Police officer, in the 26-year-old case arising out of the raid conducted at the Paschim Vihar residence of IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on October 19, 2000. After pronouncing the sentence, the court granted bail to both convicts.
During the arguments on sentence, counsel for the complainant sought the maximum punishment, contending that the case involved the abuse of authority by senior officials and the prolonged denial of justice.
It was argued that the complainant had remained in jail for several days following the incident and that the court had even recognised the misuse of the system by senior officers.
The complainant further urged the court to consider that he had waited 26 years for justice and sought maximum compensation from the convicts.
On the other hand, counsel for the convicts pleaded for leniency and waiver of substantive sentence, submitting that both officers had not acted out of personal motive and had no personal enmity with the complainant.
The defence argued that the officials were acting in the course of official directions and had already undergone the burden of a 26-year criminal trial as well as departmental proceedings.
It was further submitted that even a short custodial sentence would have serious consequences for them. In its conviction judgment passed earlier this month, the court had held both accused guilty under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 427 (mischief), 448 (criminal trespass), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, observing that the operation was carried out in a “malafide manner” to frustrate an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The prosecution case stemmed from a complaint filed by Aggarwal, a 1985-batch IRS officer, who alleged that the accused officials forcibly entered his residence in the early hours, assaulted him and conducted an illegal search as part of a vendetta linked to sensitive investigations being handled by him.
After the trial, the court held that the search and arrest proceedings were not a bona fide exercise of official power but were driven by ulterior motives.
“The entire search and arrest proceedings dated 19.10.2000 were conducted by the accused persons in a malafide manner by exceeding the powers vested upon them by law,” the court observed.
Rejecting the defence that the officials were protected under Section 197 CrPC for acts done in discharge of official duty, the court held that the conduct in question had “no reasonable nexus with official duty” and instead amounted to abuse of power. The court found inconsistencies in the defence version and relied on the prosecution’s account that the main door was broken without sufficient justification.
“The actions of the accused persons in breaking open the main door… without any justified reason constitute the commission of mischief,” the court observed, adding that the subsequent entry amounted to criminal trespass.
On the allegation of assault, the court relied on the complainant’s testimony, corroborating witness accounts, and medical evidence, including an MLC indicating an injury on the complainant’s forearm.
“There is absolutely no explanation for the injury… which points towards custodial violence at the time of effecting the arrest,” the court observed.
The judge also rejected arguments regarding the delay in filing the complaint and the failure to examine certain witnesses, holding that neither undermined the prosecution’s case.
The accused had denied the allegations, claiming that the search was necessitated as the complainant was not cooperating and that only minimal force was used. They further argued that all procedures were duly followed.
However, the court found the defence version unreliable, citing contradictions between witness testimonies and official records, including the search list.
Significantly, the court noted that the timing of the arrest — a day after a deadline to respond to directions issued by the CAT — indicated a deliberate attempt to derail the review of the complainant’s suspension.
“All these factors lead to a necessary inference that the actions… were malafide and done with the object of nullifying the order dated 28.09.2000,” the court said.
Concluding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the court held that the accused had abused their authority.
“The actions of the accused persons were deliberate attempts aimed at denying the complainant the fruits of the order passed by CAT… by exercising their powers in a malafide manner,” it said.
–IANS
pds/dan
