New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a plea filed by an NGO seeking investigation by a Special Investigating Team (SIT) against former CBI Director Ranjit Sinha for allegedly scuttling probe into a coal block allocation scam case, a charge denied by him.
Sinha had claimed before the court that a "hidden hand" was the "controlling mind" of lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who has filed the petition on behalf of NGO, and has accused Sinha of interfering and scuttling the probe into coalgate.
A bench comprising Justices M B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A K Sikri on Monday reserved the order after concluding hearing in the matter.
In the plea, NGO Common Cause, has alleged that entries in the visitors' register of the former CBI Director had made it clear that he was meeting the high-profile accused and those associated with coal block allocation like Vijay Darda, his son Devendra Darda and former Union Minister Subodh Kant Sahay.
The plea also said there was a need for court-monitored SIT investigation to ascertain "whether any consideration exchanged hands".
The NGO, in its application, submitted that since the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Delhi Police has not registered an FIR on its November 25, 2014 complaint, there was a need for court-monitored probe for alleged abuse of authority by Sinha as the then director of CBI.
However, Sinha has denied the NGO's claim that he and a few other senior officers of the level of Joint Director, repeatedly overruled the investigating officers (IOs) and forced them not to register FIRs/RCs in cases where Preliminary Enquiries had been registered and directed closure of the cases.
The bench is also hearing the application filed by Sinha accusing the NGO and its counsel Bhushan of perjury.
In the plea for perjury against the NGO and Bhushan, Sinha's counsel had said, "there is not a single case in which Sinha overruled the unanimous opinion of the officers working under him with regard to recommending closure in which they have recommended conversion to a regular case. Thus, the falsity of the statement made before this Court is evident from this count alone."
