Production Warrants against Navjot Sidhu to appear in Ludhiana court on October 21
Citing security issues Navjot Sidhu had appealed thrice to the court to hear him through video conferencing, the revision petition regarding which was also dismissed on Tuesday
Asserting that there are compelling circumstances for examination of Navjot Singh Sidhu in the Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate Sumit Makkar on Tuesday issued production warrants for his appearance on October 21. Sidhu is currently serving jail term lodged in Patiala jail. Citing security issues, Sidhu had appealed thrice to the court to hear him through video conferencing in the case, the revision petition regarding which was also dismissed on Tuesday.
Sidhu has repeatedly refused to appear in Ludhiana court as a witness in a criminal complaint case filed against former food and civil supplies minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu by suspended DSP (Ludhiana Municipal Corporation) Balwinder Singh Sekhon.
Sekhon has alleged that Ashu called and threatened him while he was in the process of conducting an inquiry in Grand Manor Homes CLU case. Navjot Sidhu was the then local bodies minister and thus has been made a witness in the complaint case. Sidhu had pleaded that he cannot be summoned as a witness in the case.
On the other hand, the suspended DSP had pleaded in the court that Sidhu should be summoned as a witness in the case because it was during his (Sidhu’s) tenure as local bodies minister in 2019 that Ashu’s name had prominently figured in the probe report of CLU scam which was prepared by the officer and the case file was submitted in Sidhu’s office which is now reportedly “missing”. The DSP had alleged that during the inquiry, Ashu telephoned him and issued multiple threats, and tried to derail the inquiry using his political influence.
The Court observed that while disposing of the previous applications, it was specifically observed that the complainant was entrusted with an inquiry by the then Local Bodies Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu. “However, in order to refrain the complainant from conducting inquiry, accused (Bharat Bhushan Ashu) gave him a telephonic call and threatened him. Thus, the testimony of applicant/witness sought to be examined by complainant was found necessary in order to view the matter from a correct perspective, in particular when it has already been brought on record that the original inquiry file has been lost after its submission to the office of the then Minister, Local Bodies Department,” said the court.
The court added that in order to ascertain the facts as to whether an inquiry was marked to the complainant; whether the inquiry report was submitted to the office of witness/applicant by complainant and whether any order was passed by him while being the then Local Bodies Minister for reconstruction of the loss file, it was found imperative to examine the applicant/witness physically in the court.
The curious case of the missing file, data was retrieved and file reconstructed
The original file of the inquiry in CLU scam was sent to the Local Bodies Minister through Principal Secretary Venu Prasad on April 10, 2019 and this file was never received back but on the verbal directions of the Principal Secretary, the file was reconstructed by retrieving data from the computer and the said reconstructed file was not signed by anyone. “In such circumstances when the entire original inquiry file had been destroyed and reconstructed thereafter, the evidence recorded by Sidhu who was the then Local Bodies Minister with Government of Punjab at the relevant time and who had entrusted the inquiry to the complainant and had allegedly received the inquiry report, is a necessary witness to prove the documents pertaining to said inquiry,” observed the court.
Sidhu had argued that it was difficult for him to appear in the Court as a witness because the he has received many threats to his life and he had been provided with Z+ security. “I have considered this argument but the same is devoid of any merit,” said the court.
The court also added that so far as threat perception to the life of the applicant/witness is concerned, if there is actually a threat perception to the life of the witness, it would be responsibility of Jail Superintendent Patiala to take up the matter with SSP Patiala for providing necessary security to the witness.