Earlier, Maneka Gandhi had challenged a trial court order directing CBI to further probe the case. (File)
The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea seeking to declare that no sanction is required for taking cognizance of the offence taken by the trial court against the accused in connection with a corruption case allegedly involving BJP MP Maneka Gandhi.
Hearing the case, Justice Yogesh Khanna issued notice to the CBI and listed the matter for December 6 for further hearing.
The court was hearing a petition filed by complainant VM Singh against the trial court order dated February 4, 2020.
Mr Singh's advocate Arjun Harkauli has urged the Delhi High Court to set aside the February 4 order "to the extent the court has directed CBI to obtain sanction from the sanctioning authority for taking cognizance of the offence."
The petitioner was aggrieved of the impugned February 4 order, whereby, he stated, the "Trial Court was prima facie convinced of the commission of offences but in view of the amendment to section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has erroneously directed the CBI to obtain sanction from the sanctioning authority for taking cognizance of the offences committed between 1998-2001."
According to the petitioner, section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides that no court shall take cognisance of an offence committed by a person who was a public servant at the time of the commission of the offence, except with the previous sanction from the competent authority.
The petitioner submitted that various high courts have held that the amendment to section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is prospective and will not apply to offences committed before the introduction of the amendment.
He further submitted the Supreme Court has held that when an amendment creates new rights, obligations, liabilities the same shall always be prospective unless the statute makes it retrospective in application.
"There is nothing in the amending Act that makes the amendment to section 19 retrospective and henceforth, the amendment to section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2018 will not apply to the facts of this case," he said.
The petitioner has urged Delhi High Court to call for the records of the case lodged under section 120B read with section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act titled "CBI vs Maneka Gandhi" pending before Special Judge in Rouse Avenue District Courts.
He also sought to declare that no sanction is required for taking cognizance of the offence by the trial court against the accused persons in the facts of the present case.
The petitioner sought to pass an order declaring that the amendment to Section 19 by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment Act), 2018 which came into force on July 26, 2018 , is prospective in application.
Earlier, Ms Gandhi had filed a plea challenging a trial court order directing the investigating agency to further probe a corruption case against her.
The trial court on February 4, 2020, had directed the CBI to again conduct further investigation and to obtain sanction from the sanctioning authority for taking cognizance of the offences committed between 1998-2001.
The CBI on May 29, 2015, filed a second closure report and they did not find any evidence of criminal culpability against the petitioner. The agency had filed its first closure report on December 30, 2018. A trial court on June 19 2010 directed CBI to re-investigate the matter.
The CBI registered a case against Maneka Gandhi and two others for sanctioning Rs 50 lakh grant to a trust allegedly in a fraudulent manner in 2001.
It was alleged that the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment through the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF), had given some grants to certain unjustified beneficiaries beyond the rules and regulations and that such grants were given at the behest of the petitioner Maneka Gandhi.
On August 17, 2006, CBI registered an FIR against Maneka Gandhi on charges of conspiracy and cheating, besides relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also named the then secretary of MAEF, Dr FU Siddiqui, and Dr Vijay Sharma, the then managing trustee, Gandhi Rural Welfare Trust.