New Delhi, April 18 (NationPress) A Delhi court has found two officials from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) guilty of assault, mischief, and criminal trespass linked to a controversial raid on the residence of a senior officer from the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) back in 2000. The court determined that the raid was executed in a malafide manner to thwart a tribunal order.

Judicial Magistrate First Class Shashank Nandan Bhatt of the Tis Hazari Courts convicted V.K. Pandey, who was then an Inspector, and Ramneesh, a former Deputy Superintendent of Police, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 427 (mischief), 448 (criminal trespass), and 34 (common intention).

The case originated from a complaint made by Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, a 1985-batch IRS officer, who claimed that the accused officials forcibly entered his home in Paschim Vihar during the early hours of October 19, 2000, assaulted him, and conducted an illegal search as part of a vendetta linked to his investigations.

In the detailed judgment issued on Saturday, the court asserted that the search and arrest actions were not conducted in good faith but were instead motivated by ulterior intentions. The court remarked, “The entire search and arrest proceedings dated 19.10.2000 were conducted by the accused in a malafide manner, exceeding their legal authority.”

The court dismissed the defence claim that the officials were protected under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for acts performed in the course of their official duties, stating that the actions lacked any reasonable connection to official responsibilities and constituted an abuse of power.

It highlighted inconsistencies in the defence narrative and relied on the prosecution's evidence that the main door was broken without proper justification. The court noted, “The actions of the accused in breaking open the main door… without any justification constitute mischief,” and their subsequent entry was deemed to be criminal trespass.

On the assault allegations, the court considered the complainant's testimony, corroborating witness statements, and medical evidence, including a Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) showing an injury on the complainant's forearm. The court stated, “There is absolutely no explanation for the injury… indicating custodial violence during the arrest.”

The judge also disregarded arguments concerning delays in filing the complaint or the absence of certain witnesses, finding them not detrimental to the prosecution's case.

The accused denied the allegations, asserting that the search was necessary due to the complainant's lack of cooperation and that only minimal force was used, claiming all procedures were followed. However, the court deemed the defence unreliable, pointing out contradictions between witness statements and official records, including the search list.

Crucially, the court observed that the timing of the arrest—just a day after a deadline to respond to directives from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)—suggested a deliberate attempt to obstruct the review process regarding the complainant’s suspension.

The court concluded, “All these factors lead to a necessary inference that the actions… were malafide and aimed at nullifying the order dated 28.09.2000.” It affirmed that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt, determining that the accused had misused their authority.

“The actions of the accused were calculated attempts to deny the complainant the benefits of the order issued by CAT… by exercising their powers malafide,” the court stated.

Both officials were consequently convicted, and the court ordered that a copy of the judgment be provided to them free of charge. The case will now advance to the sentencing phase.