Anil Ambani, Chairman of the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group. (Photo: Reuters/File)
More people are involved in giving “undue benefit to the contemnor” in the case of alleged tampering of a Supreme Court order in the contempt case against former Reliance Communications Ltd chairman Anil Ambani, the Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court on February 20 last year had held Ambani guilty of contempt of court for not honouring an undertaking to pay Rs 550 crore in dues to Ericsson India Ltd.
Two court officials were earlier sacked for the alleged tampering. “During interrogation, it was found that although the accused Manav Sharma and Tapan (Kumar) Chakraborty were involved in the crime, there are some other persons also who have hatched the conspiracy in order to tamper with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order for giving undue benefit to the contemnor for not appearing in the court on the next date of hearing,” the Delhi Police Crime Branch told Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.
Court Master (shorthand) Manav Sharma and Assistant Registrar (non-shorthand) Tapan Kumar Chakraborty were sacked on February 14 last year for the alleged tampering and booked for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and under the Information Technology Act. The two were arrested on April 7 last year and later granted bail.
Chakraborty, who filed a representation for his reinstatement in the apex court, also moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.
Responding to Chakraborty’s plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Panna Lal Sharma, appearing for Delhi Police, submitted before Justice Kait on February 25 that the stage was not appropriate for quashing of the FIR and the probe is underway. Appearing for Chakraborty, Advocate Rishi Malhotra argued that a court master cannot be made criminally liable for an error in court proceedings when the same was later verified by judges and registrars of the court.
On January 7 last year, a Supreme Court bench had rejected Ambani’s plea for exemption from personal appearance in the contempt of court case. The apex court had refused to allow the exemption, but the order uploaded on the website suggested otherwise. The bench announced an inquiry after the discrepancy was noticed.