Why not CBI probe: High Court on Narada sting

KOLKATA: Calcutta high court on Thursday gave primacy to the controversial Narada sting and wanted to know from the counsel of the accused if the preliminary inquiry could be handed over to the CBI as the state police had not yet started the inquiry despite the chief minister's announcement.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice and Justice Tapabrata Chakrabarty was not in a mood to dismiss the PIL, as urged by lawyer Kalyan Banerjee.Petitioners Amitava Chakrabarty , Brajesh Jha and Akshay Sarengi had filed three PILs on the Narada expose, in which Jha had made Trinamool MPs and ministers party to the petition.
“Maybe (Mathew) Samuel is a bad person. But that doesn't allow anyone to take money from him. At the moment, we are not concerned about what should be done with Samuel, what concerns is what we saw in the video clips,“ the acting Chief Justice said. Taking a cue, Justice Chakrabarty pointed out that the state had announced that it would start an inquiry .“What is wrong if we say that the inquiry should be held under an independent agency?“ Justice Chakrabarty said. “There are some video clips. A complaint was registered at the Shyampukur police station. But the inquiry didn't start. Can the court order a preliminary investigation by the CBI, and not by the state police?“ the acting Chief Justice said.
Kalyan Banerjee, senior counsel for the six accused--Sovan Chatterjee, Firhad Hakim, Saugata Roy , Sultan Ahmed, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar and Prasun Banerjee--cited the Constitution and provisions under the Crimi nal Procedure Code to oppose the court proposal. Banerjee argued that in case the court handed over the preliminary investigation to the CBI, the order would go against Article 21 of the Constitution and section 154 of the CrPC that entrusted the officer-in-charge of a police station to “investigate the complaint if he was satisfied that such information disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence“. Banerjee submitted that the police officer concerned had to take down the complaint--written and oral--and start the investigation if he thought that a cognizable offence could be made out of it.
Banerjee also cited that the order passed by the division bench of former Chief Justice on September 16, 2016, in which the court held that no case was made out against the accused under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 7 of the Act provides that a public servant commits an offence when he induces a person to give him money or any other gratification, as a reward for the influence he has used. “But my clients, in their affidavits, have clearly stated that they didn't ask for any money , neither did they take it, a fact that was not challenged by the PIL petitioner,“ the lawyer said.
Earlier, Samuel, in his petition, referred to a similar sting against former BJP president Bangaru Laxman in which he was seen taking money in the expose. Samuel mentioned that Laxman was removed from the BJP chief 's post. State advocate general Jayanta Mitra had earlier held that the PIL was not maintainable.
With Banerjee concluding his argument on Thursday, the bench will next hear the matter on Wednesday , when the respondents will present their arguments.