The Sahara-Birla case echoed in hearing the Anil Deshmukh petition in the Supreme Court
The 2017 Sahara-Birla case echoed in today’s process. This is related to the challenges caused by the Maharashtra government and former Minister of home Anil Deshmukh. By all means, it is against the direction of the Bombay High Court for a preliminary investigation. An investigation by former Commissioner of Police Mumbai Param Singh.
Independent investigation monitored by the court
Senior Advocacy of Kapil Sibal appeared for Deshmukh, drew parallel with the 2017 case where the distribution of Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy’s judges have stated that the documents from the Sahara-Birla indicate the alleged payment to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and other civil servants, not enough to direct an independent investigation monitored by the court. In that case, the court has argued that investigations cannot be ordered based on unacceptable documents in evidence.
CBI investigation
Sibal handed over that in the instant case, the question is whether the CBI investigation can be ordered based on the statement of Parllamber Singh, which is not proven. He stated that Singh did not have personal knowledge and the statement did not have an evidential value.
Prima-facie reliable
“It is not the case that he has knowledge. The case is that this statement was made by the Minister of Home Affairs for Patil, who then went to Bhujhbal, who then spoke with Waze, who told me. On the Inquiry, CBI was ordered against me. There was no evidentiary value. This is not a prima-facie reliable and therefore it is not acceptable “, arguing Sibal.
When Singh’s statement was only based on Hearsay, Sibal argued that there was a precedent set by the case of the Sahara-Birla, the investigation could not be ordered.
Court does not allow investigations
“In this case, even though there are entries present, the court does not allow investigations because the entry is not in regular books of accounts and they need Prima Facie evidence. That is the principle by 3 judges in this court. In this case, statements are made based on the wind. In fact, Can it be calculated? “Sibal submitted.
Investigation ordered must be based on legal principles
Firstly, Responding to the observations of the judiciary that the facts quoted by Sibal are on a different footing, Sibal argues that he is on the principle and that the investigation ordered must be based on legal principles. Before concluding, Sibal observed that “it would be a sad day in the country” if the court enforces orders this way.
However, the judges Sk Kaul and Hemant Gupta, however, refused to appeal because of the individual’s allegations and individual personality, and uphold the Bombay High Court decision, at the time of departure from the Supreme Court order.
Request for an independent investigation monitored by the court
In the case of 2017, the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had decided that the mere document. This Papers showed the alleged payment to the prime minister would not be enough to accept the request for an independent investigation monitored by the court. During this case, Mancuk Rohatgi General beat Rohatgi then relied on the case of Jain Hawala to argue that the document itself cannot be received evidence.
