National   

Proceedings against Pawar, BCCI officials stayed

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed all criminal proceedings initiated by the Calcutta High Court against the former president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Union Agriculture Minister, Sharad Pawar, and five other BCCI officials relating to filing of an affidavit in the Jagmohan Dalmiya expulsion case. A Bench of Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Sathasivam stayed the proceedings on special leave petitions filed by Mr. Pawar and five others against the High Court order dated November 12, directing an enquiry into the alleged filing of false affidavit and registration of a complaint against the six persons.

Besides Mr. Pawar, others who filed the SLPs are the BCCI, Niranjan Rasik Lal Shah, Chirayu Amin, Sashank Manohar and N. Srinivasan. The Bench issued notice to Mr. Dalmia seeking his response in four weeks.

Solicitor General G.E. Vahanvati, appearing for Mr. Pawar, submitted that the High Court had directed an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. relying on an affidavit of one Ratnakar Shetty filed on behalf of the BCCI in a civil suit filed by Mr. Dalmia.

He said a preliminary enquiry was ordered without hearing any of the persons against whom the complaint was to be filed and without complying with the principles of natural justice.

Senior counsel Fali Nariman, Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Singhvi and Rohinton Nariman joined Mr. Vahanvati in pointing out how the single judge’s order was erroneous and patently wrong.

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr. Dalmia, justified the order, saying that since it was only a preliminary enquiry, there was no need for hearing the persons concerned before a complaint was made. He cited an earlier three-judge judgment of the apex court relied on by the Calcutta High Court for passing an ex-parte order.

The CJI told counsel “Under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the judge [concerned] must give an opportunity to the persons before conducting an enquiry, record a finding and then direct registration of a complaint.” Referring to the judgment cited by counsel, the CJI said that was a case in which there was a judicial finding after an enquiry, and hence there was no need for giving further opportunity but “here it is not.”

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Guest, baggage screening at hotels mooted
Scare at Delhi airport
Scopus Young Scientists Awards presented
Chavan, Bhujbal to work to restore people’s trust
N.D. Tiwari moves High Court in paternity case
Security breach in Buddhadeb’s convoy
Proceedings against Pawar, BCCI officials stayed
Plea for probe into ‘Hindutva terror’ rejected
Inside Chandigarh
Excellence pays
“Time for introspection, stop blame game”

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu