'Wild Accusations' : Anil Deshmukh's Counsel Compares Param Bir Singh's Letter To Harshad Mehta's Allegations Against PM

"It was at the Taj Mahal Hotel's ballroom. Mehta had a galaxy of the best lawyers sitting next to him. He was carrying a suitcase and said, 'Oh, here's how one crore fits in the suitcase. This is how I went and delivered 1 crore to the PM of India (PV Narsimha Rao)," Senior Counsel Amit Desai said.

Late jurist Ram Jethmalani was Mehta's lawyer. Incidentally, his son, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, represents ex-CP Param Bir Singh, who has accused Anil Deshmukh of corruption, culminating in the present proceedings.

Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar were hearing Deshmukh's petition which challenges the FIR registered by the CBI against him and unknown others under the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR was filed after the Chief Justice's bench directed a preliminary enquiry against Deshmukh on April 5, 2021, and asked the CBI to take further action in accordance with law.

Attempting to draw a parallel between Mehta's allegations against the PM and Param Bir's allegations against Deshmukh, Desai said that the legislature provided certain safeguards to protect officials from such wild accusations.

He claimed the CBI required the State's consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and section 17A (sanction) of the Prevention of Corruption Act despite the HC ordering the enquiry.

"Can't the reasoned order of the court substitute the satisfaction of the government?" the bench questioned Desai, repeatedly pointing out that the HC has recorded its prima facie satisfaction regarding the need for probe on allegations against Deshmukh.

"Here, the court found it necessary to say act in accordance with the law, despite the presumption that the executive acts in accordance with law. CBI has a duty to apply for permission to the state before the preliminary enquiry under 17A of the PC Act," Desai said, adding, "Even Kasab got the benefit of the rule of the law in this country. The probe is illegal."

He submitted that the law is clear, that the State's sanction would not be required under section 17A of the PC Act if the official is caught in a trap case. However, sanction would be needed if the offence was allegedly committed while discharge of official duty.

Desai then went on to connect the requirement of sanction with the facts of the present case. He said that the two main allegations against Deshmukh were – he acted dishonestly in the discharge of his public duty and he knew about now dismissed API Sachin Waze's reinstatement.

"If, according to CBI's FIR, all his acts were in discharge of his public duty, then wouldn't the bar of 17A apply? Moreover, having knowledge is not an offence. Therefore, his knowledge of Waze's reinstatement would not be an offence under section 7 of the PC Act," he said.

The case will now be heard on Monday.

[Anil Deshmukh vs CBI]