Court asks CBI to enquire from Deepak Chaurasia, Bhupendra Chaubey and Manoj Mitta

New Delhi: A Delhi court has asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to enquire from three journalists - Deepak Chaurasia, Manoj Mitta and Bhupendra Chaubey - about their sources who provided them with a fake CBI report in connection with the disproportionate assets case against Late Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members. 

“Further enquiry is required to be conducted from the concerned journalists on the aspect of their respective sources from whom they received the purported impugned forged documents which became the basis of their respective news items. Further, based on such information, additional clues regarding the identities of the culprits who entered into the alleged criminal conspiracy, prepared and fraudulently and knowingly used as genuine the forged document by providing it to the media/ getting it published/aired, could be found and probed. Further investigation on this aspect is thus required to be conducted,” said an order issued by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Anjani Mahajan.

The CBI had closed the case as “untraced” but CMM Mahajan rejected the untraced report filed by the CBI in the matter and asked it further investigate the matter.

On March 1, 2007, the Supreme Court (SC) directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the alleged assets acquired by Samajwadi Party leader (now late) Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members on a petition filed by lawyer Vishwanath Chaturvedi. In compliance with the SC order, the CBI opened an enquiry on March 5, 2007. The enquiry was concluded on October 26, 2007. A status report based on the evidence collected in the matter was prepared and placed in two sealed cover envelopes before the top court.

Giving details of the case, the court said a hearing in the matter in the SC was scheduled to take place February 9, 2009, but just a day before the scheduled date of hearing, the Times of India, New Delhi published a news article captioned “CBI may admit Mulayam was framed-DIG’s internal note says the agency had not verified in PIL”. The same kind of news was also aired on two news channels - Star News and CNN-IBN. 

The CBI said the alleged report these journalists referred to was fake and fabricated and the signature of the agency's Deputy Inspector General (DIG) was forged. The CBI on March 16, 2009, registered an FIR in the case against unknown persons for preparing a fake and fabricated report to tarnish the reputation of the CBI. 

The FIR alleged that these “unknown persons during the year 2008-2009 entered into a criminal conspiracy and with the intent to commit forgery for purpose of harming the reputation of the CBI and CBI officers, used as genuine, a forged document, printed/aired false and fabricated news in newspapers/on TV channels knowing the same to be defamatory and in pursuance of said conspiracy”. 

CMM Mahajan said the CBI has not chosen to take the investigation to its logical conclusion merely because the concerned journalists denied revealing their respective sources.

“There is no statutory exemption in India to journalists from disclosing their sources to investigating agencies, more so where such disclosure is necessary for the purpose of aiding and assisting in the investigation of a criminal case. The investigating agency can always bring to the notice of the concerned journalists the requirement of disclosure of the source being essential and vital to the investigation proceedings. The investigating agency is fully equipped under the IPC and Cr.P.C. to require the public persons to mandatorily join in an investigation where the investigating agency is of the opinion that such public persons are privy to any facts or circumstances pertaining to the case under investigation and public persons are under a legal duty to so join the investigation,” said CMM Mahajan in the order. 

The CBI had told the court that during its probe it asked the concerned news channels to provide documents in this regard but they had not given any document on which their news reports were based.

The judge pointed out the agency has not clarified as to what was the mode of seeking requisition of the documents, whether by way of letters or by way of notices etc. 

“The CBI is well within its power to direct the concerned journalists/news agencies by way of notices under section 91 of the criminal procedure code etc. to provide the required information and bring to their notice the requisite facts of the case warranting disclosure of the information as per law,” said CM Mahajan.

The court also said even though the agency said in its probe report that “the concerned journalists - Deepak Chaurasia, Bhupendra Chaubey and Manoj Mitta had been examined, however, the copy of the statement of only Bhupendra Chaubey under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code is on record and it is only Chaubey who was mentioned as a witness in the list of witnesses filed by CBI along with the initial final report. 

But the court noted that in its supplementary untraced report, the CBI removed the name of Bhupendra Chaubey as well as the names of certain other witnesses who were earlier mentioned as witnesses in the initial report. The judge termed it inexplicable and asked the agency to re-look at this aspect.

The court also pointed out that there were no statements under section 161 CrPC of Deepak Chaurasia and Manoj Mitta on the record nor are they cited as witnesses in either of the lists of the witnesses filed by the CBI. 

The court said a further enquiry is required to be conducted from the concerned journalists on the aspect of their respective sources from whom they received the forged documents which became the basis of their respective news items. 

As per the CBI probe, there were two alleged forged status reports dated 30.07.2007 and 20.08.2007 and they contained several paragraphs lifted from the undated status report of the CBI which was kept in sealed cover for the perusal of the Supreme Court. 

The CMM further noted: “The final (probe) report (of the CBI) is totally silent on the aspect of the investigation if at all was conducted, as to how the official document i.e. the undated status report of the CBI which was kept in sealed cover got leaked a day before it was to be filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, from the office of CBI, ultimately reaching the media. Further, as per the opinion of the FSL expert, the signatures of Smt. Tilotama Varma (the CBI DIG, whose signatures were forged) had been lifted from the original note-sheet and compressed and reproduced on the alleged 17 pages review note. The final report does not disclose any investigation done, on the aspect of how the forger could have gained access to the original note-sheet of Smt. Tilotama Varma from which the signatures had been lifted, compressed and reproduced on the alleged forged document as per opinion of the CFSL”

The judge said in view of all these points, an investigation is also required to be carried out by the CBI on the modus operandi adopted by the culprits for gaining access to or obtaining the official documents including probing the involvement of any insider in the case. 

“Hence, the untraced report is rejected and the CBI is directed to carry out further investigation in the present case,” said CMM Mahajan.