Pointing out errors, CBI files Review of Justice Banumathi-headed Bench’s verdict granting bail to Chidambaram

In its Review of the order of R Banumathi-led Bench on granting Chidambaram bail, the CBI has argued that there is a serious miscarriage of justice

In its Review of the order of R Banumathi-led Bench on granting Chidambaram bail, the CBI has argued that there is a serious miscarriage of justice
In its Review of the order of R Banumathi-led Bench on granting Chidambaram bail, the CBI has argued that there is a serious miscarriage of justice

Pointing out “errors” and “non-consideration of facts”, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday filed a Review Petition against the bail granted by Supreme Court’s Justice R Banumathi-headed Bench. The CBI’s Review Petition said that the bail order granted to the former Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram on October 22 did not consider the statement of witnesses recorded regarding the attempts of Chidambaram to silence them. In the Order, the Justice Banumathi-headed Bench said that there are no details as to the form of the approach of those two witnesses – either SMS (Simple Messaging Service), e-mail, letter or telephonic calls and the persons who have approached the material witnesses.

The Order also blamed the CBI saying that there is no evidence that Chidambaram tried to influence two material witnesses in the case. The Order passed by the Justice R Banumathi-headed Bench said that no details are available as to “when, where and how those witnesses were approached”. The CBI’s Review Petition challenges this stand of the Court and clarifies that the agency has given the legally recorded statements of the two witnesses.

“In the order of dismissal some errors apparent on record have crept in, which if considered, would have a material change in the outcome of the SLP (Special Leave Petition),” said the review petition filed through advocate Rajat Nair. The CBI said the review petition has been filed as the findings rendered in the October 22 verdict are contrary to the record, which is required to be corrected and suitable order is required to be passed.

“It is submitted that the finding recorded by the High Court was on record of the SLP which has completely escaped the attention of this Court though specifically invited on behalf of the CBI during the course of the hearing. This has resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. This Court, being the Court of record should clarify this position and review its order,” the CBI’s review plea said.

The CBI said the finding rendered by this Court is clearly contrary to the record and amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record.

The probe agency said that as pointed there are “cogent and credible evidence” in form of witness statements under section 161 and 164 of CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code), which clearly records that the SLP petitioner (P Chidambaram) has attempted earlier and is trying to influence the said witnesses and pressurize them into not deposing them against the SLP Petitioner and his son (Karti Chidambaram).

“It is submitted that in absence of this court perusing the statements available with the investigating agency, the said findings could not have been rendered by this court to hold that the allegation is a mere averment without any basis,” the review plea said.

“It is stated that the said allegation was not a mere averment of the investigating agency, but was based on the cogent material available with it and as such could not have been rebutted without even perusing the material available on record. In view of this ground alone, the judgment rendered by this Court is liable to be reviewed,” it added.

The CBI said the finding rendered by this Court is clearly contrary to the record and amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. The probe agency also requested the top court to accord hearing while adjudicating the review plea.

Team PGurus

We are a team of focused individuals with expertise in at least one of the following fields viz. Journalism, Technology, Economics, Politics, Sports & Business. We are factual, accurate and unbiased.
Team PGurus

13 COMMENTS

  1. Jus Bhanumarthi is not known for her reasoned judgement. She once said that there should be no comparative advertisement at all even if it is factual. So long as there is quota system we will have these situation.

    • She is a Christian or christian convert…..
      How can you expect Christian judges to give good , reasonable judgements… Always biased just like their media n religion.

  2. Corruption in Judiciary has brazenly reached the highest levels of pertinacity, stubbornness .
    All the Judges who sold BAIL to Chidambaram should be investigated & details of their assets collected.
    Judges like Banumathi should be deprived of Judicial Duties till an inquiry is completed.

  3. Yes he knows the RAM_SETU =RouteAccessed(by)Mallya_ Setu…… to vanish fm भारत ,bcoz *GPS* to vanish easily.fm India_ might not be fm *NASA* but might b the one catered for _by all *dubious* officials who served *then* in various Ministries under *Chidu*
    So Investing Agency is right in its demand of going thru’ statements of witnesses on records once again..*STATEMENTS* themselves.hv not opted to b *recused* fm findings _ those are spade a spade.

  4. No wonder Justice Banumathi gave gave bail to CheatAmbaram. She knew Chidu for 4-5 decades. I have sympathies to Justice Bhanumathi. She is also Tamilian. She should have recused from hearing from Chidu’ case. But NO. She heard a known person’s case and gave bail.

    • While I fully agree that there is a miscarriage of Justice, it is totally wrong to attach motive to the Judge. The same Judge gave a dissenting judgement in case of Ayyapppa temple entry and was very bold in stating that judges cannot sit on the judgement of Practices and it should be best left to the customs and practices followed for decades or centuries, she mentioned. Judges are also human beings and subject to the same infirmities as others. May be they can reverse the judgement if the factual errors on record are again brought to their notice.

        • Yes I agree it is Indu Malhotra. Even then I still believe that Judge Banumathi is biased. Yes she has given erroneous judgement which I agree also. But immediate conclusion should be avoided. Further judges of SC normally are expected to be above board unless credible evidences are there.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here