Rhea Chakraborty's bail rejected by the Mumbai Sessions Court.
[ Rhea Chakraborty's bail ] Bail application of Rhea Chakraborty and 5 others is rejected by the Mumbai
Sessions Court.
[ Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta's corrupt practices to save the accused from serious charges, involvement in anti national activities is under investigation and the complainant got the deemed sanction to prosecute him. ]
Friday 11th Sep 2020:
The
Mumbai Sessions Court on Friday rejected the bail applications of all 6 accused
- Rhea Chakraborty Showik Chakraborty, Abdul Basit, Zaid Vilatra, Dipesh Sawant
and Samuel Miranda.
Shushant Singh Rajput’s case again gave room for discussion as to
whether C.B.I. is doing surveillance of corrupt and tainted Judges and
their middlemen.
Earlier C. B. I. arrested many Judges. They
also arrested their own advocate.
High Court Judge Shameet Mukharjee was arrested for passing
order by taking bribes and favours of women & wine [2003 SCC OnLine Del 821]
Justice Nirmal Yadav was charge sheeted for accepting bribe of Rs.
15 Lakhs for passing a favourable order.
In R.R Parekh Vs High Court of Gujarat &Anr.
AIR 2016 SC 3356, while confirming the removal of the tainted
Judge from the service it is ruled by the Supreme Court as under;
“ A judge passing an
order against provisions of law in order to help a party is said to
have been actuated by an oblique motive or corrupt practice - breach of the
governing principles of law or procedure by a Judge is indicative of judicial
officer has been actuated by an oblique motive or corrupt practice - No direct
evidence is necessary to punish such Judges - A charge of misconduct against a
Judge can be be established on a preponderance of probabilities -
The Judge had absolutely no convincing explanation for this course
of conduct - Punishment of compulsory retirement directed. ”
The news published in Rediff.com on June
01, 2012 reads thus;
" During its investigations against the tainted
judge, the CBI has searched the bank locker of his son and recovered an amount
of Rs 3 crore. It was looking for the remaining Rs 7 crore, as the agency
suspect that an amount of Rs 10 crore changed hands in the deal.
The CBI has also unearthed many other details
of the sordid affair including the role of a minister from Rayalaseema region
of Andhra Pradesh, a former judge and a goon in arranging the deal under which
the judge was paid an amount of Rs 3 crore as advance.
The remaining Rs 7 crore were handed over to
him after the bail was granted to Gali on May 12.
The CBI sources said that they have also asked
banks to freeze the accounts of the kin of Patthabi Rama Rao to stop them from
withdrawing the cash. The CBI sources said that they were keeping an eye on the
banks ever since the judge had granted the bail to Gali Janardhan Reddy in the
Obulamuram mining case.
In this case Gali Janardhan Reddy was arrested
by the CBI on September 5 last year on the charges of illegal mining of iron
ore in Anantapur district and exporting it to other countries.
Andhra Pradesh Chief Justice M L Lokur had put
the judge under suspension on Thursday after receiving the complaint from the
CBI. The chief justice also ordered the legal department to conduct its own
probe against the judge. He asked the judge not to leave Hyderabad without
permission.
The CBI has unearthed this scandal at a time
when another CBI special court headed by Principal Judge A P Ullaiah was
hearing the bail petition of YSR Congress president and Kadapa MP Jaganmohan
Reddy. The responsibility of Patthabi Rama Rao, the first additional judge of
CBI, has also been handed over to Pullaiah."
The news published in
The Hindu on November 15, 2017 reads thus;
" The Andhra Pradesh High Court has suspended
Mr. T. Pattabhirama Rao, First Additional Special Judge for CBI, on receiving
information about corruption in granting bail to Mr. Gali Janardhan Reddy, in
the mining lease case.
The CBI Judge had granted bail to Mr. Reddy,
the former tourism minister in the Karnataka Government, last month in the
Obulapuram Mining Company and mining lease case. He was appointed the CBI judge
in April after three courts were constituted.
The High Court Registrar General, Vigilance,
in a statement on Thursday, stated that after considering the information
received against the judge, the High Court decided to place him under
suspension. At least, five members involved the financial transaction,
including the son of the CBI judge, are under CBI scanner now. "
In (Justice) Mrs. Nirmal Yadav
Versus C.B.I 2011(4) RCR(Criminal)
809, it is ruled thus;
" The petitioner Justice
Mrs. Nirmal Yadav, the then Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court found to
have taken bribe to decide a case pending before her- CBI charge sheeted - It
is also part of investigation by CBI that this amount of Rs.15.00 lacs was
received by Ms. Yadav as a consideration for deciding RSA No.550 of 2007
pertaining to plot no.601, Sector 16, Panchkula for which Sanjiv Bansal had
acquired interest. It is stated that during investigation, it is also revealed
that Sanjiv Bansal paid the fare of air tickets of Mrs. Yadav and Mrs. Yadav
used matrix mobile phone card provided to her by Shri Ravinder Singh on
her foreign visit. To establish the close proximity between Mrs. Yadav,
Ravinder Singh, Sanjiv Bansal and Rajiv Gupta, CBI has given details of phone
calls amongst these accused persons during the period when money changed hands
and the incidence of delivery of money at the residence of Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur
and even during the period of initial investigation - the CBI concluded that
the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act is
established against Ravinder Singh, Sanjiv Bansal and Rajiv Gupta whereas
offence under Section 11 of the PC Act is
established against Mrs.Justice Nirmal Yadav whereas offence punishable
under Section 120-B of the IPC read
with Sections 193, 192, 196, 199 and 200 IPC is also
established against Shri Sanjiv Bansal, Rajiv Gupta and Mrs. Justice Nirmal
yadav
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you.” Merely because the petitioner
has enjoyed one of the highest constitutional offices( Judge of a High Court ),
she cannot claim any special right or privilege as an accused than prescribed
under law. Rule of law has to prevail and must prevail equally and uniformly,
irrespective of the status of an individual. Taking a panoptic view of all the
factual and legal issues, I find no valid ground for judicial intervention in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested with this Court. Consequently, this
petition is dismissed.
B) In-House procedure 1999 , for enquiry
against High Court and Supreme Court Judges - Since the matter pertains
to allegations against a sitting High Court Judge, the then Hon'ble Chief
Justice of India, constituted a three members committee comprising of Hon'ble
Mr.Justice H.L. Gokhale, the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court,
presently Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, the then
Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, presently, Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court
and Justice Madan B.Lokur, the then Judge of Delhi High Court, presently Chief
Justice Gauhati High Court in terms of In-House procedure adopted by Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 7.5.1997. The order dated 25.8.2008 constituting the
Committee also contains the terms of reference of the Committee. The
Committee was asked to enquire into the allegations against Justice Mrs. Nirmal
Yadav, Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court revealed, during the course of
investigation in the case registered vide FIR No.250 of 2008 dated 16.8.2008 at
Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh and later transferred to CBI. The
Committee during the course of its enquiry examined the witnesses and recorded
the statements of as many as 19 witnesses, including Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav
(Petitioner), Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, Sanjiv Bansal, the other accused
named in the FIR and various other witnesses. The Committee also examined
various documents, including data of phone calls exchanged between Mrs. Justice
Nirmal yadav and Mr.Ravinder Singh and his wife Mohinder Kaur, Mr.Sanjiv Bansal
and Mr.Ravinder Singh, Mr.Rajiv Gupta and Mr. Sanjiv Bansal. On the basis of
evidence and material before it, the Committee of Hon'ble Judges has drawn an
inference that the money delivered at the residence of Hon'ble Ms.Justice
Nirmaljit Kaur was in fact meant for Ms.Justice Nirmal Yadav.
Report of Committee of Judges was served
upon the petitioner for her response by Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. "
Comments
Post a Comment