This Article is From Nov 18, 2015

Ready to Reopen 1984 Riots Case Against Jagdish Tytler, CBI Tells Court

CBI ready to reopen 1984 riots case against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler

New Delhi: Two months after calling Jagdish Tytler "innocent", the CBI told a court today that it could reopen a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case against the Congress leader linked to a mob attack on a Gurdwara.

The CBI's statement came after three new witnesses emerged in the case.

The agency had earlier told the court that Mr Tytler was not involved in the attack on November 11, 1984, and it could not trace any witnesses either.

The Akali Dal, which rules Punjab and is also part of the central government, then moved court claiming it can get the addresses of three new witnesses, Resham Singh, Chanchal Singh and Alam Singh.

The CBI told the court today that it is willing to investigate the case if their addresses were made available.

In September, the CBI had said it could not implicate an "innocent" man and defended its clean chit to Mr Tytler. The agency was replying to a protest petition filed by riots victim Lakhvinder Kaur, whose husband Badal Singh was killed in the riots that left thousands dead after the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards..

"The CBI being a responsible investigating agency cannot falsely implicate and prosecute an innocent person merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions," said the agency.

Lakhvinder Kaur filed a  petition through senior advocate HS Phoolka asking the court to investigate the case and take action against Mr Tytler on charges that he influenced witnesses and was involved in money laundering.

Mr Phoolka said the CBI's investigation was "faulty, tainted, dishonest and perfunctory".

The agency twice earlier gave a clean chit to the Congress leader. In April 2013, a sessions court rejected the closure report and ordered the agency to further investigate the gurdwara attack.

Over a year later in December last, the CBI filed another closure report saying that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed against Mr Tytler.
.