Investigations by the CBI are governed by elaborate provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is the basic procedural law. On completion of investigation. the CBI is required under section 173 of the code to submit a report tothe concerned court setting out the facts ascertained during the investigation, the offences made out and the accused persons involved in them. The format for this report is statutorily prescribed. It is this report that, in common parlance, is referred to as the chargesheet.

Evidence unearthed during an investigation covers a variety of facts involving several persons, some of whom come up as accused and some as witnesses. Even among the accused, the nature and quantum of evidence vary from one to another. The evidence against some may be, prime facie, strong enough for prosecution on a specific criminal charge. In regard to some others, it may not be sufficient for prosecution but may raise a reasonable suspicion about their involvement in the crime. There may still be some others against whom even such suspicion may not arise on the available evidence. The chargesheet also mentions persons against whom evidence is not sufficient for prosecution.

A large majority of cases investigated by the CBI relateto corruption complaints against government servants. On the conclusion of every investigation, the CBI gets the evidence scrutinised by its law officers and then identifies the accused to be prosecuted and the other accused against whom the evidence would not justify prosecution but warrant departmental disciplinary action. Chargesheets are then prepared, setting out the relevant facts and the liability of different accused. The chargesheet format has a column to note the names of the accused to be tried and also another column to note the names of accused not sent up for trial. Reasons for not prosecuting such accused may be inadequacy of evidence or the accused being granted pardon or the death of the accused.

In this context, it should be noted that `inadequacy of evidence' is different from `absence of evidence'. The former may turn the `needle of suspicion' against someone while the latter will connote exoneration. The CBI has followed the established procedure in preparing the chargesheet.

Thetortuous course taken by this case during the CBI investigation is well-known. Thirteen long years have been lost in procedural wrangles in India and Switzerland from where a large volume of tell-tale documentary evidence from banks had to be secured. Efforts of the CBI were reportedly blocked at several stages by vested interests within the government as well as outside. After surmounting all these difficulties by relentless efforts and professionally commendable work, the CBI has now filed the chargesheet, naming some accused who are liable and are available for trial on specific criminal charges, and naming Rajiv Gandhi in the prescribed column relating to accused persons not sent up for trial, since he is no more.

Those protesting against the entry in this column do not seem to be aware of the significance of the narration of relevant facts and evidence in the chargesheet. Surely Gandhi's name must appear in several places in the sequential presentation of the case. Some witnesses also must havereferred to him in some context or the other in their statements. Do the protesters want a total removal of all references to Rajiv Gandhi's name from all the statements and documentary evidence because he is dead? This, on the face of it, will be a preposterous demand at the very commencement of trial. It is only as the trial proceeds and the evidence unfolds that the court and the public will know the extent of his involvement. His name has necessarily to remain in the chargesheet to make the narration of the case cogent and intelligible. Union Minister Arun Jaitley put it succinctly when he said in Parliament that his name has been mentioned to `sustain' the chargesheet.

The Congress has made an open threat to take the issue to the street if the government does not get Rajiv Gandhi's name removed from the chargesheet. This is a brazen assault on the sanctity of rule of law. It must be hoped that wiser counsel will prevail over sycophantic frenzy and that the legal advisers of Gandhi's followers willconfine their battle to the courtroom.Politicians across the country now seem to feel that they are above law, and any legal proceedings against them can be thwarted by branding them as `politically motivated' and hence untenable. This is the stock defence of many VIP politicians facing regular criminal charges relating to corruption in courts. It is time that such bluff was called. The term `political offence' has a definite connotation in law. The Extradition Act refers to this term and lays down a procedure for the extradition of persons accused of offences other than political, from one country to another. Political offences arise from acts linked with expression of political dissent or those aimed at change of government by constitutional means. Engagement in political activity cannot be construed as a licence to commit crimes.

Swift and certain punishment for proved acts of deviant behaviour in society is normally expected to deter such behaviour. This element of deterrence is now practicallynon-existent in our outmoded criminal justice system which is bogged down by huge arrears of cases awaiting disposal for years. It is further weighed down by archaic procedures and dilatory tactics deliberately adopted by many parties and their counsel in court proceedings. All this is eroding the people's faith in the existing system.

Unscrupulous politicians involved in crimes feel secure in such a system. By drumming up vociferous crowd support in close proximity to court proceedings, they only show contempt for the process of law. It is the bounden duty of the enlightened public in a democracy to demonstrate its strong disapproval of the conduct of all such politicians.

The writer is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation