7 hours Ago By Payal Dhawan
Ludhiana: The much-hyped viral audio recording , said to be that of a conversation between then food and civil supplies and consumer affairs minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu and then deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Balwinder Singh Sekhon , which tarnished Ashu’s image and affected his political career, could not be proved in court. Sekhon’s allegations about the former minister threatening, intimidating and obstructing him from performing his duty could not be proved either. The court of chief judicial magistrate Radhika Puri said that the complaint was devoid of merit and was dismissed.
On May 24, 2021, dismissed DSP Balwinder Singh Sekhon filed a case against former Congress cabinet minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu, accusing him of deterring him from performing his duty, harassing him and threatening him over investigation of the CLU (common land use) scam of “Grand Manor Homes”- a residential project in Ludhiana’s Ishar Nagar area. Sekhon also produced an audio recording, claiming that on July 24, 2018, he received a call from Ashu, who threatened him. Petitioner Sekhon alleged that in the third week of July 2018, Ashu called him to his house and told him to concentrate only on policing instead of indulging in other things.
According to the court, there was sole testimony of the complainant of his visit to Ashu’s house in the third week of July, 2018 and he could not bring on record any other corroborating evidence. Sekhon alleged that on July 24, 2018, he received a call from Ashu, who openly threatened him and interfered in the lawful discharge of his official duty. In the petition, he said that he was at his friend Navdeep Singh’s residence when he received the call and another friend, Amit Grewal, was also present.
During the trial, both Navdeep Singh and Amit Grewal testified that Sekhon had attended a call and that he appeared to be tense during the conversation. They said that after the call, Sekhon revealed that Bharat Bhushan Ashu had called him and threatened to kill him because of the inquiry. The court observed that the testimony of Navdeep Singh and Amit Grewal could not prove that Sekhon received a call from Ashu.
It was incumbent upon Sekhon to bring documentary evidence to prove that the number used in making the call to him was that of Ashu, however, Sekhon failed to produce such documentary evidence. The court said that vital documents had been withheld by the complainant and adverse inference was drawn against him. It was observed that the conversation between the complainant and the accused could not be proved.
.
