Delhi Court Accepts CBI Closure Report Against Satyendar Jain Over PWD Hiring Case; Says No Incriminating Evidence Found
A Delhi Court has accepted the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case registered against AAP leader Satyendar Jain and others over allegations of irregular engagement of professionals in the PWD and payments made from unrelated project funds.
Special judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts observed that despite several years of investigation, no incriminating evidence was found against anyone to support charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or any other offence.
“When the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC Act, 1988, further proceedings would serve no useful purpose,” the Court said.
“Not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rules warrants invoking the POC Act. There must be at least some material to justify applying the provisions of the POC Act, 1988. Mere neglect of duty or improper exercise of duty alone may not constitute a violation under the POC Act,” it added.
The FIR was registered in 2018 against Jain, who was the then PWD Minister, and other PWD officials based on a complaint from the Delhi Government’s Directorate of Vigilance.
It was alleged that Jain and PWD officials irregularly hired a “Creative Team” of consultants, breaching recruitment and financial regulations.
It was also alleged that the hiring bypassed standard recruitment procedures and expenses were charged to unrelated projects, such as “Barapulla Phase-III,” without clearance from the Finance Department.
After having investigated the matter for about four years, CBI found no criminality or evidence of personal gain, bribery, or any criminal intent or violation of financial rules.
Accepting the closure report of CBI, the judge said that there was no material even to suggest a criminal conspiracy and there was no evidence to support the provisions or to invoke jurisdiction under any of them.
“The allegations, as presented, and the factual background are not sufficient to warrant further investigation or to initiate proceedings. The law clearly states that suspicion cannot replace proof. It is also worth noting that, even to charge someone, mere suspicion is not enough; at least strong suspicion would be necessary to proceed,” the Court said.
“In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in the absence of any evidence and sanction, the present final report for closure of the FIR is accepted,” it added.
The judge said that if any fresh material is received against anyone, CBI would be at liberty to investigate the matter further and take appropriate action.