New Delhi, Nov 19, 2019-
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday clarified that the controversial paragraphs pertaining to the judgement of the court denying bail to P. Chidambaram contain facts relating to the case of lawyer Rohit Tandon and not of the senior Congress leader.
The said observations came up while the court was hearing an application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking correction of the factual errors which inadvertently and due to accidental slip have crept in paragraphs 35, 36, 39 and 40 of the order.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said that nowhere in paragraph 40 it is stated that the same is related to the present case (Chidambaram’s case).
While disposing of the application, the court also observed that clarification regarding paragraph 35 was already issued through the court’s order on Monday.
As far as paragraph 36 is concerned the court clarified that only the word “CCTV footage” was mentioned inadvertently. Reference to call data records and Account Trend Analysis was justified in view of the submissions made by the ED in sealed cover.
While dealing with paragraph 39, the court said that only law is discussed and hence no clarification is required.
During the course of hearing, advocate Dayan Krishnan while opposing the plea said, “Their submission is that paras in question are attributed to them as their submissions. But, their submissions in the judgement start from para 16 and continue till 31. I am opposing it on the point of maintainability.”
Krishnan argued that the clarifications being sought by the ED were not clerical mistakes and thus the court had no power to “alter” its order in view of the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Krishnan further asserted that the ED had never put forth any submissions with respect to CCTV footage etc.
Justice Kait while dismissing the contentions expressed his views on news reports on the controversy and said, “This is motivated news.. You do it because you did not get the order that you want.. I can say it with responsibility that I have rightly dismissed the bail..” (Agency)