New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday transferred
the two 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases, allegedly involving
Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and others, from Special CBI
Judge to a Sessions Court.
"Indisputably, Delhi is one sessions division and any
Additional Sessions Judge can try the case. This is not a case
under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
"The chargesheets were assigned to Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate of the North East district who
conducted the committal proceedings, so the cases are
allocated to Additional Sessions Judge (NE) Sunita Gupta,"
District and Sessions Judge G P Mittal said.
The court directed all the accused as well as the CBI
counsel to appear before ASJ Gupta on April 5.
Earlier, the court reserved its order on a plea of a
co-accused of Kumar seeking transfer of riots cases from a
special court to a judge having local jurisdiction.
The court heard the arguments of counsel for CBI and
Khushal Singh, the co-accused of Kumar, in the matter.
During arguments in the matter, V K Malik, counsel for
Khushal, submitted that it was illegal to try an offence
before a court which does not have jurisdiction in the matter.
He contended that Delhi has been divided into nine
judicial districts and so the cases relating to killings of
the victims during the riots should be tried at the courts
having proper jurisdiction.
Malik submitted that since the cases in which CBI
filed the chargesheet related to the offence that took place
in Sultanpuri and Delhi Cantonment area, they should be tried
at Rohini and Dwarka courts respectively.
However, D P Singh, counsel for CBI, said that the
application of the accused has already been disposed of by a
special CBI judge at Karkardooma.
The CBI counsel also submitted that the file has been
sent only for administrative purposes for proper allocation of
The CBI, which claimed that the files related to two
cases were sent by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
(ACMM) to the Special judge at Karkardooma, was put some tough
questions by the judge.
"Who gave power to the ACMM. Does the ACMM has the
power to send a file to a special court," the District Judge
Appearing for the complainant, senior advocate H S
Phoolka submitted that the accused had already accepted the
jurisdiction of the Karkardooma court by filing anticipatory
bail petition before it.
Phoolka`s submission led to a heated argument with the
counsel for the accused opposing his plea alleging that he did
not have right to speak in the matter to which Phoolka shot
back saying the matter related to public sentiments and
involved larger interest of the community.
A special CBI court at Karkardooma had on March 27
disallowed the plea of Khushal who had sought transfer of
cases by raising objection over its jurisdiction, but had sent
the case files to the district judge to seek proper allocation
On March 20, ACMM had declined to take on record an
application of Kumar seeking certain documents related
to the chargesheet filed against him in the riot cases and
directed them to appear before the CBI court.
The High Court had on February 8 asked the trial court
to put the anti-Sikh riot cases on fast track with a direction
to wind up the proceedings within six weeks.
The CBI had filed two chargesheets on January 13 in
the riots cases registered on the recommendation of Justice G
T Nanavati Commission which had inquired into the sequence of
events leading to the riots in the aftermath of the
assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.