‘Sidhu most relevant witness in missing file case’

Ludhiana:The complainant in the alleged CLU (change of land use) scam, former DSP Balwinder Singh Sekhon filed a reply to the plea filed by former local bodies minister Navjot Singh Sidhu seeking exemption from personal appearance in court. The case will now come up for hearing in the court of chief judicial magistrate (CJM) Sumit Makkar on September 8.
In the reply, Sachin Arora, counsel for the complainant pleaded that the applicant did not face risk to life. “Examination of the witness has been ordered by this court and the complainant has the right to bring on file the evidence which he deems necessary to pursue his case. If at all any security is needed for producing the witness, then that is the responsibility of the state government or other competent authorities,” the counsel for complainant pleaded in the reply. He added that jail authorities were fully competent to seek security from the state to produce the witness in court and as such, this cannot be a ground to avoid summons.
On August 25, Ludhiana court issued bailable warrants to Patiala jail superintendent on a plea seeking production of Sidhu. It was filed by the dismissed DSP against Ashu for deterring him from performing his duty, harassing him and threatening him during the probe of the scam involving Grand Manor Homes, a residential project in Ludhiana’s Ishar Nagar. An audio recording, purportedly of a conversation between Sekhon and Ashu also went viral.
Later, Sidhu filed a revision plea in Ludhiana sessions court. Listing the case for further hearing on September 7, it directed the lower court to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by the sessions court. In the detailed reply, the complainant said, “The witness is trying to put cart ahead of the horse by claiming that the complainant should have proved loss of the file. The fixation of the responsibilities is not of the complainant.”
The counsel for Navjot Sidhu had pleaded in the application that he was no longer in the office of local bodies, government of Punjab in any capacity and records, if any, could be obtained by calling any competent official from the office of local bodies, government of Punjab. In his reply, the counsel for the complainant said, “The applicant is none else but the same cabinet minister, who had ordered the inquiry. The inquiry was conducted and final report submitted to him, which was accepted by him and he is the most relevant witness to prove these facts, which are essential for pursuing the complaint.”
The reply filed by the counsel for complainant said that the application was filed merely to escape from appearing in this case by circumnavigating the orders passed by the court.