New Delhi: Pointing out the “errors and non-consideration” of fact, the central bureau of investigation (CBI) has filed a review petition against the bail granted to the former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram by the bench headed by R. Banumathi of the supreme court. The CBI has said in its review that the bail was granted without consideration of the facts placed dated on 22nd October.
In the order, justice Banumathi had said that there were no details as to the form of approach of two witnesses – which are SMSs, E-mail, Phone details etc. It was also said in the order that there is no concrete evidence that suggests that P. Chidambaram attempted to influence those in this case. Subsequently, there is no details were provided by the CBI as to what, where, and how the witnessed were approached and influenced. Nonetheless, the CBI has challenged the stand of the court and clarified that the agency has submitted the legally recorded state ments of two witnesses in this regard.
In the order of dismissal some errors apparent on records have crept in, and if that is considered, will have a change of materials in the outcome of the Special Leave Petition (SLP). The CBI had also said that the review petition is filed as findings rendered in the October 22nd verdict, which is contrary to the record, that needs to be corrected and a suitable order to be passed by the court.
It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the High Court was on records of the (SLP) which has completely escaped the attention of this court through specifically invited on behalf of the CBI during the course of hearing, which seems an error apparently on the face of the record which is also resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. The CBI has cited strong words by saying in his review petition as “the court of record should clarify this position and review its order”.
This is, however, the probe agency has said that as “cogent and credible evidence” in form of witness's statements under section 161 and 164 of the CrPC, which clearly records that the SLP petitioner has attempted earlier and is trying to influence the said witnesses and pressurise them into not deposing them against Mr. Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram.
It is also said in his submission by the CBI that 'in absence of this court perusing the statement available with the investigation agency'. The said allegation was not a mere averment of the investigating agency, but it is based on cogent substances, therefore, in view of this ground alone, the judgement rendered by this court is liable to be reviewed.
