HC Upholds Trial Court Order for Rs 10-Crore Railway Bribery Case

The SC recently rejected a PIL against writer Kancha Illaiah, upholding the fundamental right to free speech.

The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order allowing the CBI to place on record two CDs containing purported telephonic conversations intercepted during its probe in the cash-for-post bribery case in the Railways.

The case allegedly involves former railway minister Pawan Kumar Bansal's nephew Vijay Singla and others.

Besides Singla, the other accused facing trial in the Rs 10 crore cash-for-post railway bribery case are Mahesh Kumar, then Member (Staff) of Railway Board, Managing Director of Bangalore-based GG Tronics India NR Manjunath, alleged middlemen Ajay Garg and Sandeep Goyal, besides co-accused Rahul Yadav, Sameer Sandhir, Sushil Daga, CV Venugopal and MV Murali Krishan.

Justice SP Garg dismissed the petition moved by one of the 10 accused, Sameer Sandhir, who had challenged the trial court's special judge February 2016 order, by which it had allowed the CBI's plea to place on record the CDs.

The court saidPrima facie, there is sufficient material on record to infer that both these CDs are relevant and can be produced as evidence during trial as per law. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the order (of a trial court). The petition lacks in merits and is dismissed

It also noted in its order that the prosecution is not expected to prove their authenticity and genuineness beyond reasonable doubt at this stage, merely because the CDs were filed at belated a stage, that is after the filing of the chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet.

The CBI had moved the application before a trial court to place on record the CDs containing the purported telephonic conversation in pursuance to May 2015 order by the high court.

The high court had directed the trial court to permit the agency to file appropriate application to bring on record the sealed CDs and decide whether these can be brought on record during recording of evidence and under which provision of law.