Sumedh Singh Saini can't be party to City Centre case, says prosecution

LUDHIANA: Replying to former DGP Sumedh Singh Saini's application for making him party in the City Centre scam in which CM Captain Amarinder Singh is one of the accused, the prosecution has pleaded that the applicant is neither a complainant nor an informant, so he has no locus standi (right to appear in court) in the case in personal capacity.

The next date of hearing of the case in the court of session judge Gurbir Singh is December 17. Saini had filed the petition on November 28, opposing the vigilance bureau's closure report in the case. He submitted that he was in possession of some "sensitive material" which he wanted to submit to the court in a sealed envelope.

In its reply, the prosecution pleaded on Friday that the probe in the case was initiated in the on orders from the then chief minister. The then vigilance bureau director, C S R Reddy, had conducted the inquiry and submitted the report, which was completed by three officers of the bureau. It added that hence, none of the members was private to the case and had just acted in discharge of their duties.

"So, none of them can be said to have any personal interest or suffered any injury, incurring any right to be heard as per the spirit held by the apex court in Bhagwant Singh's case," the reply by prosecution reads. "After close scrutiny, it is clear that the file in question was never tabled before the applicant for any order or approval. Hence, he cannot be said to be an informant, getting any right to be heard," the reply read.

The prosecution added that the applicant had never acted in private capacity while discharging the functions of director of Punjab vigilance bureau, so once he demitted the office on his transfer, he had no role to play.

The prosecution submitted before the court that the applicant had worked as director and chief director of the bureau from March 2007 to March 2012, and the report was filed in court on December 12, 2007. Despite remaining in office for more than four years, he didn't get the report concluded, it said. It added that this fact makes it clear that the applicant had no role to play in initiation of the report in the court.