Former Vyapam case accused not required to appear before CBI: HC

Source: The Hitavada      Date: 06 Dec 2018 11:43:15


 

Legal Correspondent,

The division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Chief Justice S K Seth and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, disposed off a writ petition in the matter related to petitioner issued summons by the CBI directing him to be present at the CBI office in connection with Vyapam case.
The bench stated that in view of the counter affidavit and reply filed by the CBI and the stand taken by Assistant Solicitor General, J K Jain, there was no need for further action for in the matter.


The division bench of the MPHC heard the petition filed by Sant Kumar Trivediya aggrieved by the notice issued by the CBI under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing him to be present the CBI office in connection with Vyapam case.


Contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that earlier petitioner was prosecuted in the court of Special Judge, Khandwa and by the judgement dated on July 25, 2015, petitioner was acquitted from all charges. Without reason, the petitioner was again served notice and therefore, the present petition was filed. After notice, Assistant Solicitor General for the CBI J K Jain filed counter affidavit and pointed out that initially a criminal case was registered at police station Moghat Road, Khandwa for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(Gha)(2)/4 Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examination Act, 1937.

It was pointed out that the petitioner was prosecuted in connection with the case, but as the main culprit, who was absconding was not brought to the book, the petitioner was acquitted. Subsequently, by the orders of the Supreme Court in writ petition, the CBI has taken up the matter for further investigation. It was in the connection to find out whereabouts of the main culprit that the notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 160 of the CrPC.
Assistant Solicitor General Jain further submitted that the statement of petitioner was recorded by the CBI on October 2 and 3, 2018 and at present, he was not required.