New Delhi: Expressing concern for the late that cannot be explained in the CBI and ED section in resolving the probe, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said agents should not maintain the “sword hanging” for the defendant and there must be a completion of the investigation.
Noting that the investigation was still ongoing and the Chargesheets had not been submitted in several cases even after a decade, the Chairman of the Ramana NV Judge and Judge Dy Chandrachud and Surya Kant asked for their response to prepare monitoring the committee to ensure that the investigation was completed in a reasonable time.
Bench, who hear the petition that protested the delay in the failure of the institution to sue parliamentarians and MLA in cases registered against them many years ago, also showed that in the case of Tada derived from 1995, it still has not been framed.
.
The General Saw Sawar Mehta said that the court must provide orders that direct the institution to complete the probe in all cases involving parliamentarians within six months and also directing that the trial was completed in a reasonable time.
The bench, however, is skeptical about the effectiveness of such direction because of the bench that runs out.
“It’s easy for us to say trials that speed up and all …
but where are the judges?” The bench was observed and said that it would pass through the detailed in the room.
But the court, emphasized rapid prosecution of cases involving parliamentarians.
“If there is something in this case then you have to file a chargesheet but if you don’t find anything, the case must be closed.
Don’t keep the sword hang,” Cji observed after going through data on pending cases where the investigation had been going on for many years year.
The bench said he did not want to pass any observation because it would damage the investigation body but “the image is placed before speaking volume”.
“Report (submitted by the CBI, ED) is very uncle and there is no reason given not to submit a chargesheet for 10-15 years.
The reason for delays is not mentioned in the report,” said the bench while referring to the data placed by the agency in the investigation They are against parliamentarians and MLAS.
CJI said he had asked his brother judge on the bench to complete several solutions as well as for the improvement of all people and the community that investigations and trials were concluded in sequence.
The bench also asked Mehta to hold a meeting with the CBI directors and the Directorate of Enforcement to find out whether they needed additional workers and infrastructure expansion to enable institutions to complete their duties in sequence and consider the next hearing date court.
Compiling data in a delayed case against MP / MLA in various countries, Amicus Curiae and Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria told the bench that “disturbing and surprising numbers and require a surgical strike to deal with delays and courts of these cases..
Referring In the CBI report, he said it was surprising that the agency said that the trial in one of the cases is expected to expire in 2030.
But SG immediately intervened and said it might be a typo error.
According to the report submitted by Amicus Curiae, 51 MPS and 71 MLC were accused of in Cases arising from violations under the prevention of money laundering laws, 2002.
A total of 121 CBI cases against MPS / MLAs are waiting in front of the court.
Of these, 58 cases can be sentenced to death or life sentences.
The oldest case is from 2000 and 37 cases still under investigation.
Mehta said in many cases ed , Response from abroad is often needed and the letters that Rogatori must be sent and the delayed response to the request for assistance is blocking the conclusions of the initial investigation.
Hansaria suggests that the Committee can be consulted to monitor the probe carried out by the CBI and ED and consist of a former SC or former HC Managing Director (or its nominance is not below the ranking of additional director), (c) Director of the CBI (or the candidate is not below the Director’s ranking In addition), (d) the secretary of the house (or nominance is not under the rank of the Joint Secretary), and (e) Judicial officials who are not below the rank of district judges nominated by SC.