New Delhi, July 3;The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the CBI on an appeal of Congress leader Jagdish Tytler against a trial court order reopening a case against him related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
Justice S.P. Garg, seeking response from the agency, also issued notice to the complainant, Lakhwinder Kaur, and asked her to reply within four weeks. The matter was posted for Sep 18.
Justice Garg also declined to stay the investigation ordered by the trial court against Mr. Tytler, saying, “Only investigation was ordered and this court will not stop the investigation.”
On April 10, a trial court ordered that the case be reopened against Mr. Tytler and also set aside the CBI closure report, which gave the Delhi Congress leader a clean chit on the ground that there was “no evidence” against him.
Mr. Tytler, in his appeal, said, “The trial court order is contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code. The method and mode of investigation by a probe agency is the absolute prerogative of the agency. It is not for the court to direct the agency about which witness should be examined by it.”
Seeking that the trial court order be quashed in the 29-year-old case, the plea said: “The settled position of law is that a direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is prima facie found to have been committed or a person’s involvement is prime facie established. But direction to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given.”
The trial court’s order came on a plea filed by riot victim Lakhwinder Kaur, who sought a further probe into the killing of three people near Gurdwara Pul Bangash in old Delhi.
The court, setting aside the magisterial court order that accepted the CBI’s closure report, had said: “The order of the trial court accepting the closure report is set aside. The CBI is directed to conduct further investigation in the light of aforesaid facts and to record the statements of witnesses, who, it had come to know during the investigation itself, are claiming/shown/named to be witnesses of the incident.”
The probe agency had sought the dismissal of the victim’s plea, saying it had established that Mr. Tytler was not present at Gurudwara Pul Bangash on Nov 1, 1984.
However, senior advocate H.S. Phoolka, appearing for Lakhwinder Kaur, had said that there was material which the CBI had ignored.
Mr. Tytler’s role in the killing of three men was re-investigated by the CBI after a court in December 2007 refused to accept the closure report.
