New Delhi: Disputing the assertion of senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, CBI counsel said, “dishonest and criminal intention” were included in the case of Mr Bagrodia, which is not present in Dr Singh’s case.
Despite the CBI filing a closure report against the former PM, the trial court had issued summons to Dr Singh and the apex court had stayed all further proceedings against him and few others in the coal block allocation case. On Monday, the CBI supported the earlier closure report and said there was no charge of dishonest intention against Dr Singh.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Mr Bagrodia challenging the summons issued by the trial court for his appearance in the case as an accused in connection with the allocation of Maharashtra’s Bander coal block to AMR Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd. On September 7, the bench had refused to stay summons.
Special CBI judge Bharat Parashar had in June this year taken cognisance of alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) under the IPC and relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and issued summons to Mr Bagrodia and few others.
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr Bagrodia said the trial court had wrongly summoned the petitioner even after finding that there was no ‘dishonest intention’ or ‘mens rea’ (criminal intention). It was for the same reason the apex court in April had stayed the summons issued to the former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who also held the coal portfolio and few others, he said.
Counsel pleaded that parity be extended to his client and not staying the trial court order would be an injustice to his client who had only made recommendations and decisions were taken by the former prime minister. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 29 and gave liberty to Mr Bagrodia to file application in trial court seeking exemption from personal appearance.
