Subash Chandra seeks phone call records of three Jindal family members Including Naveen Jindal
Requests Court To Monitor Investigation; Seeks Other Side of the Coin To Be Investigated Too
Voluntarily Meets Police to Clarify Their Misrepresentations Regarding His UK Phone Number
New Delhi: Mr. Subhash Chandra's counsel Vijay Aggarwal on Wednesday submitted a representation on behalf of ZNL's Non-Executive Chairman Mr Subhash Chandra in Saket District Court, stating:
To pass necessary orders and directions to the investigating officer for the call records of Mr. Sitaram Jindal, Mr. Pruthvi Jindal and Mr. Navin Jindal for the month of September - November, 2012.
To Monitor the investigation and pass necessary orders and directions thereby directing the Investigation Officer in the matter to expedite the investigation of the matter by taking into consideration all the documents / representation filed.
The conduct of the investigating officer during the investigation can be ascertained by the fact that the investigating agency is not investigating the matter properly thereby considering all the documents / representation submitted by the applicant and only conducting investigation on the basis of one face of the coin not the other.
Pass necessary orders and directions thereby directing the investigating officer to considered the pleading in the civil suit for defamation and the reply / affidavit filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and investigate the matter efficiently after considering the version of my client.
Later in the evening, Mr Chandra voluntarily visited the Chanakya Puri Crime Branch Police Station. He stated that it was wrong on part of the police authorities to spread unattributed stories in the media that he had denied possession of the UK number.
Newsmen gathered outside the police station asked Mr Chandra if, indeed, the news license of Zee News could be hit. To this Mr Chandra reminded that the complaint against Zee News has come from the prime perpetrators of massive collusion and corruption of public resources.
That serious and repeated violators like the channel which had broadcast phone interviews of terrorists besieging Mumbai during 26/11 and another channel which showed utter make-believe stories on mass firings in Mumbai that very day were allowed to continue broadcasting, are facts the government’s decision makers will have to consider, Mr Chandra reminded.
In a separate affidavit, Sudhir Chaudhary, said that the following on the complainant should also be kept in mind while the Investigation is being carried on: