DA case:Court seeks CBI reply on Ajay Chautala's transfer plea

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Feb 22 2017 | 3:28 PM IST
A Delhi court has sought the CBI's response on a plea by INLD leader Ajay Chautala, who is serving 10-year jail term in a teachers' recruitment scam case, for transfer of a disproportionate assets case against him to another court.
District Judge Ravinder Kaur issued notice to CBI on the plea and listed it for filing of reply and hearing arguments on March 3.
While hearing a similar transfer application by co- accused Abhimanyu Singh, the court summoned S L Goyal, a CBI witness in the DA case, on a claim that he was a relative of the presiding officer hearing the matter.
The district judge noted that the concerned presiding officer, in his comments, had not specifically denied that the witness is not known to him.
CBI prosecutor said despite several attempts, the witness could not be contacted and it was necessary to get information for him as to whether he was known to any other CBI judge posted in the district.
Advocates Harsh Sharma and Vaibhavi Sharma, who appeared for Ajay, sought the transfer of the case saying their client apprehended that he would not get a fair trial if the case continued to be tried by the court presided by the same judge.
The counsel alleged that the presiding officer's conduct was "utmost unfair" and the evidence was being recorded in the "most illegal manner" by permitting the prosecution to put leading questions.
On both the transfer pleas, the district judge had sought the comments of the presiding officer and, according to sources privy to the case, he has said that the grievance of the accused persons is the expeditious trial being done by the court as they were interested in delaying it by steps like appearing late for court proceedings from the jail.
Regarding Abhimanyu's claim that the CBI witness was related to the presiding officer, the sources said the judge has mentioned that Goyal was a distant relative.
He is also understood to have said that in case this "insignificant relationship" was creating apprehension in the mind of accused, either the witness could be examined by some other court or the case could be transferred to another court.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Feb 22 2017 | 3:28 PM IST

Next Story