CBI had no grounds to file second case, Virbhadra Singh tells Delhi HC

R Sedhuraman

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 27

Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh on Tuesday contended in the Delhi High Court that the CBI had no grounds to register a second preliminary enquiry (PE) against him in a disproportionate assets case after finding nothing against him in nearly three years of investigation under the first PE.

Arguing before a Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi, senior advocate Dhyan Krishnan said the CBI had registered the first PE on October 19, 2012, and closed the probe on May 14, 2015, for want of evidence.

In between, CBI and other departments filed as many as five status reports in the high court but these were not made available to Singh, Krishnan argued, pleading with the court to peruse these reports to ascertain if the findings justified registration of a second PE on June 17, 2015.

CBI has approached the high court seeking permission to file a chargesheet against Singh for allegedly accumulating unaccounted wealth amounting to about Rs 6 crore during the assessment period 2009-12.

Krishnan also questioned CBI’s propriety in booking his client while a PIL was pending in the High court seeking a probe into Singh’s wealth and the Income Tax Department was looking into the issue. 

Justice Sanghi, however, wanted to know how Singh had accumulated Rs 6 crore. Krishnan said the merits of the case would be dealt with later by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was not well.

On September 15, Sibal had questioned the legality of CBI’s disproportional assets case against Singh on several counts, contending that the agency had flouted laws to proceed against him with an “element of enthusiasm and mala fide intention.” 

Sibal said CBI also could not have registered the DA case in Delhi as the alleged assets were in Himachal Pradesh. The agency had booked his client under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for purchase of insurance policies for Rs 6 crore using undisclosed income, not for taking bribe which fell under Section 13(1(d) of the Act, he had noted.