Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court has convicted a sitting Joint Director of the CBI and a retired Assistant Commissioner of Police in a case arising from a pre-dawn raid conducted nearly 26 years ago against former IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, with the court holding that the action was a malicious attempt to circumvent judicial orders.
Court Convicts Two Former Investigators
Judicial Magistrate First Class Shashank Nandan Bhatt convicted Ramneesh, a 1994 batch IPS officer of the Gujarat cadre who is currently serving as Joint Director, CBI, and VK Pandey, a retired Assistant Commissioner of Police in Delhi, for offences of assault, criminal trespass and mischief under Sections 323, 427, 448 and 34 of the IPC.
At the relevant time in 2000, Ramneesh was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the CBI, while Pandey was serving as an Inspector in the agency.
The court has listed the matter for arguments on sentence on April 27. The complainant, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, a 1985 batch IRS officer who at the relevant time was serving as Deputy Director of Enforcement, Delhi Zone, was eventually discharged in both CBI cases against him.
FCRF Returns With CDPO, Its Premier Data Protection Certification for Privacy Professionals
Court Says Raid Was Malicious
While convicting the accused, the court held that the entire search and arrest proceedings of October 19, 2000 were conducted maliciously, with the sole objective of nullifying a CAT order dated September 28, 2000 that had directed review of the complainant’s deemed suspension within four weeks. The court also held that the accused acted in clear violation of the powers vested in them by law.
It said their actions did not fall within the scope of discharge of official duty and that they were therefore not entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC or Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act.
The court further noted that the accused broke open the main sliding door of the complainant’s house, amounting to mischief and criminal trespass, and said this was confirmed even by the accused’s own search list filed before the Delhi High Court.
Injury, Delay and Defence Rejected
The court found that the complainant suffered an injury on his right hand during the raid, a fact it said stood established through eyewitness testimony, the complainant’s medico legal case record and an admission in the counter affidavit of accused VK Pandey before the Delhi High Court.
It also noted that instead of sending the required reply to the Income Tax Vigilance Directorate by October 18, 2000 as directed by the CAT, the CBI officer held a secret meeting on the evening of October 18 and decided to raid and arrest the complainant the next morning.
According to submissions recorded in the material, counsel for the complainant argued that while investigating sensitive FERA cases involving influential persons, Aggarwal had faced sustained pressure from his superiors and had made seven representations to the Revenue Secretary between 1998 and 1999 regarding interference in his investigations.
It was further alleged that Abhishek Verma, whom the complainant was investigating, filed a complaint against him in connivance with CBI officials, leading to registration of an FIR.
The court also recorded allegations that a team of CBI officers reached the complainant’s residence at about 5 am on October 19, 2000, beat the security guard when he sought identity proof, jumped the boundary wall, broke open the main sliding door, confined family members to a room and dragged the complainant out of his bedroom in his undergarments. It was also alleged that he was manhandled and pushed on the stairs, causing injuries to his right arm, and was taken to an unknown location near Peeragarhi Chowk before being produced at DDU Hospital at 8.45 am.
While convicting the accused, the court rejected the defence case as riddled with contradictions. It noted that the accused’s own search list confirmed that the main door was broken, while defence witnesses at trial claimed only a latch was dislocated. The court also rejected the argument that the medico legal case was not proved, noting that it had been admitted by VK Pandey himself and formed part of his affidavit before the Delhi High Court. On the issue of delay, the court said the one-year delay in filing the complaint was satisfactorily explained by the fact that the accused were powerful CBI officers who had threatened the complainant and his family with dire consequences.
About the author – Rehan Khan is a law student and legal journalist with a keen interest in cybercrime, digital fraud, and emerging technology laws. He writes on the intersection of law, cybersecurity, and online safety, focusing on developments that impact individuals and institutions in India.
