NEW DELHI, Mar 7:
CBI Director Ranjit Sinha today said there was no pressure on him to implicate former Gujarat home minister Amit Shah in the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case and the agency has filed the charge sheet on the basis of evidence which could withstand legal scrutiny.
“There are always perceptions. We also hear. We have to go by the evidence that we have. After all I cannot invent evidence. We have to find evidence and assess whether it is fit to file the charge sheet,” Sinha said at a function.
Sinha said the issue was also raised whether they were terrorists or not.
“The fact was they were human beings and they were killed in this country. We have to take action as per the Indian Penal Code. There is no exception for somebody who is labelled as a terrorist,” he said.
“There was no pressure on me to implicate somebody in the case,” he replied to a question whether he was under pressure to name Shah as accused in the case.
On the sobriquet of “caged parrot” earned by CBI, Sinha, in a light hearted comment said, “We have been called vultures during Ishrat Jahan case, we have been called caged parrot and also unbridled horse. I think we have lost our identity to the animal kingdom.”
When he was asked about the action taken by the agency on the evidence that a senior Tamil Nadu Police officer was helping DMK leader Karunanidhi in 2G scam, Sinha said agency has already filed charge sheets in the 2G cases and matter is under trial.
“The recorded conversation which you referred we have also heard about it but we have not received a copy and we do not know whether they are relevant or not,” he said.
He was speaking at India Today Conclave 2014 here.
Sinha said it was never an intention of CBI to go after Intelligence Bureau, of which four officers were charge sheeted in the case, terming it to be a sister organisation.
“Intelligence Bureau is our sister organisation. We have our colleagues working there with whom we have very intimate social and professional relationship… It was never the intention of CBI to go after Intelligence Bureau,” he said.
He said the case was handed over to CBI on the orders of the Gujarat High Court and SIT probe had already established that the encounter was fake.
“Other aspect that court wanted us to look was the conspiracy part. Intelligence Bureau plays a very important role in anti-terrorist activities so they had a role to play. Since it was the order of the High Court we had to investigate intelligence bureau officers,” he said.
Sinha said IB was also forthcoming despite their operational constraints.
When asked about “political pressure” on the agency, Sinha said if anybody asked me to do certain things or look into certain aspects that does not amounts to interference in investigation.
“In fact that gives other person’s point of view in arriving at a decision,” he said.
In his address, Sinha said, state police has lost the faith and credibility so even those cases in which the state police is competent are being referred to CBI.
He said an impression was sought to be created that CBI wanted to wriggle out of control and supervision of the government.
Sinha said it was never the intention of the CBI to take itself out of the purview of the executive control as provided by the statute.
“It was to ensure more professional, efficient, expeditious and impartial conduct of CBI investigations in sync with the motto, industry, impartiality and integrity,” he said.
Welcoming the fixed tenure of institutional heads to avoid political interference, Sinha said that experience over the years has shown that investigation of any important case takes more than two years in finalisation.
Director CBI has a fixed tenure of two years.
“Further, any plan or policy to improve the efficacy of the organisation also entails a period of more than two years for a Director to enable him to ensure that such plan and policies are properly implemented,” he said.
On the alleged political interference in the working of CBI, Sinha said these are basically “interventions” enabling the agency to have a pragmatic and complete view of the matter under investigation.
“It also depends upon the individual or organisation as how such interventions are taken. Listening to all concerned including accused or suspects is always in the interest of the organisation and it is in fact one of the cardinal principles of natural justice,” he said.
Last year, the agency had to face the ire of Supreme Court for sharing the status report on coal scam with Law Minister and other officials following which the then Law Minister Ashwani Kumar had to resign.
“I may inform you that in case a court makes any adverse comments about the quality of investigation or conduct of investigating officer, the same is taken extremely seriously in the CBI and such matters are painstakingly examined for appropriate action against erring or negligent CBI officers,” he said. (PTI)
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel