The Delhi High Court has directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against six Central Bureau of Investigation officials for allegedly tendering a false statement in court regarding correspondence with the government. Allowing a petition moved by former Indian Revenue Service officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Justice Madhu Jain instructed the Special Judge (CBI) to lodge a formal written complaint against the officers and forward it to the jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks. The officials named in the ruling are Sushil Dewan, Vineet Vinayak, Amit Kumar, Raman Tyagi, Prem Kumar Gautam, and Md Azad.
Prima Facie Ground Under Key IPC Sections
The High Court observed that there was a reasonable foundation to examine allegations against the officials under Sections 191, 193, and 209 of the Indian Penal Code. These statutory provisions deal respectively with giving false evidence, punishment for fabricating evidence, and making a fraudulent or dishonest claim before a court of law. In its October 6 order, the court held that the record presented a prima facie basis to determine whether a claim was placed before the bench despite the officials being fully aware that it contradicted the actual state of affairs.
The matter has its roots in an earlier disproportionate assets case initiated by the CBI against Aggarwal. In January 2016, the High Court invalidated the prosecution sanction granted against him, leading to his discharge from the case. While the probe agency weighed an appeal before the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Law and Justice concluded in June 2016 that there were no tenable grounds to pursue the challenge further. That assessment was officially forwarded to the agency by the Department of Personnel and Training in July 2016.
Discrepancy Found in Agency’s Written Submissions
The controversy arose after Aggarwal filed an application seeking the release of records impounded during the probe. In a formal reply filed on August 2, 2016, the CBI stated that correspondence with the Ministry concerning legal options was under way. However, a scrutiny of the agency’s internal records revealed that no communication was taking place at that juncture. Instead, the agency was simply examining the matter internally to see if it should seek reconsideration and obtain further legal views.
The court paid close attention to earlier drafts of the agency’s response. An initial draft explicitly stated that the DoPT had declined the request to approach the Supreme Court. That admission was subsequently deleted and substituted with a handwritten note asserting that consultations with the Ministry were ongoing.
Contention of Mere Imprecise Phrasing Rejected
The High Court dismissed the defence that the wording amounted to nothing more than an imprecise choice of words. It observed that the circumstances went well beyond a litigant merely failing to substantiate a legal contention. The bench maintained that the preparation, alteration, vetting, processing, approval, and submission of the reply, viewed alongside prior drafts and internal file notes, indicated possible active involvement by the officers in putting forward an inaccurate position.
The court also ruled that a subsequent clarification submitted by the agency on August 9, 2016, could not dilute the gravity of the earlier assertion, nor could the agency claim that no prejudice had been caused to Aggarwal. Determining that an inquiry remained expedient in the interests of justice, the court allowed Aggarwal’s petition and ordered the Magistrate to take up the matter.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
