No Evidence: Delhi Court accepts CBI Closure Report Against Satyendar Jain in PWD Hiring Probe

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh at Rouse Avenue Courts noted that despite a prolonged probe, the CBI had not found any material to support charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or any other criminal offence.

“When the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC Act, 1988, further proceedings would serve no useful purpose,” the Court remarked.

The FIR, registered in 2018, was based on a complaint from the Delhi Government’s Directorate of Vigilance. It alleged that Jain and Public Works Department officials had irregularly hired a “Creative Team” of consultants in violation of recruitment and financial rules, with project payments improperly charged to unrelated schemes like “Barapulla Phase-III,” without Finance Department clearance.

However, after nearly four years of investigation, the CBI reported that it found no evidence of criminal intent, personal gain, bribery, or conspiracy.

"Not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rules warrants invoking the POC Act," the Court observed, adding that “mere neglect or improper exercise of duty alone may not constitute a violation.”

The Judge observed, "The total investigation found no criminal activity or wrongful loss to the government, nor any pecuniary benefit to M/s Soni Detectives. No evidence of quid pro quo or conspiracy has emerged, and the acts of public servants do not constitute fraudulent conduct. The complainant failed to provide any fresh oral, documentary, or electronic evidence to justify further investigation."

It emphasized that suspicion cannot substitute proof, and even for charging an accused, strong suspicion, not mere conjecture, is necessary. "There is no material whatsoever even to suggest a criminal conspiracy," it said.

“There is no evidence to support those provisions or to invoke jurisdiction under any of them. The allegations, as presented, and the factual background are not sufficient to warrant further investigation or to initiate proceedings. The law clearly states that suspicion cannot replace proof. It is also worth noting that, even to charge someone, mere suspicion is not enough; at least strong suspicion would be necessary to proceed,” the Court held.

However, it left the door open for future proceedings, noting that CBI would be at liberty to re-investigate the matter if any fresh material comes to light.