<p>Expressing displeasure over a magisterial court for treating “casually” the leakage of 2007 Samjhauta Express blast case accused Swami Aseemanand’s confession, a sessions court here has asked the magistrate to hear afresh a plea for taking action against those responsible for the leak.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Swami Aseemanand had allegedly confessed to a magisterial court that he was involved in various bomb attacks, including that in Samjhauta Express in 2007, along with several other Sangh activists.<br /><br />“The factum of confidential document having been leaked in such a manner is a matter of grave concern and should not have been taken so casually by the court and in these circumstances, the appropriate inquiry was desirable to go to the root of the matter to arrive at some logical conclusion,” additional sessions judge Savita Rao said.<br /><br />The sessions court’s order came on a revision petition by RSS functionary and Ajmer dargah blast case accused Devender Gupta, against the order of a trial court. <br /><br />Gupta, arrested for his alleged role in the Ajmer dargah blast case and presently lodged in Ajmer Central Jail, had moved the court seeking registration of an FIR against unknown CBI officials and some Tehelka journal scribes for leaking Assemanand’s confessional statement to a judicial magistrate.<br /><br />Aseemanand, 60, prime accused in Hyderabad’s Mecca Masjid blast case, in his confessional statement recorded by a magistrate here on December 12, 2010 had alleged that he and several other Sangh activists had a direct role in the blasts, including those at Malegaon, Samjhauta Express, Ajmer dargah and Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad. <br /><br />The ASJ has referred the matter for today to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law considering the observations made in the present order and to take action against whosoever is found responsible for the leakage.<br /><br />While the CBI told the ASJ that its investigating officer had not disclosed or supplied the copy of confessional statement to anyone, the journalist who published it, had said he had received it from an advocate.</p>
<p>Expressing displeasure over a magisterial court for treating “casually” the leakage of 2007 Samjhauta Express blast case accused Swami Aseemanand’s confession, a sessions court here has asked the magistrate to hear afresh a plea for taking action against those responsible for the leak.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Swami Aseemanand had allegedly confessed to a magisterial court that he was involved in various bomb attacks, including that in Samjhauta Express in 2007, along with several other Sangh activists.<br /><br />“The factum of confidential document having been leaked in such a manner is a matter of grave concern and should not have been taken so casually by the court and in these circumstances, the appropriate inquiry was desirable to go to the root of the matter to arrive at some logical conclusion,” additional sessions judge Savita Rao said.<br /><br />The sessions court’s order came on a revision petition by RSS functionary and Ajmer dargah blast case accused Devender Gupta, against the order of a trial court. <br /><br />Gupta, arrested for his alleged role in the Ajmer dargah blast case and presently lodged in Ajmer Central Jail, had moved the court seeking registration of an FIR against unknown CBI officials and some Tehelka journal scribes for leaking Assemanand’s confessional statement to a judicial magistrate.<br /><br />Aseemanand, 60, prime accused in Hyderabad’s Mecca Masjid blast case, in his confessional statement recorded by a magistrate here on December 12, 2010 had alleged that he and several other Sangh activists had a direct role in the blasts, including those at Malegaon, Samjhauta Express, Ajmer dargah and Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad. <br /><br />The ASJ has referred the matter for today to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law considering the observations made in the present order and to take action against whosoever is found responsible for the leakage.<br /><br />While the CBI told the ASJ that its investigating officer had not disclosed or supplied the copy of confessional statement to anyone, the journalist who published it, had said he had received it from an advocate.</p>