06-12-2007, 08:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Case against Q is strong but Govt lacks will </b>
<i>Joginder Singh, former CBI Director, analyses the latest cover-up</i>
A court in El Dorado, Argentina, has rejected the CBI's request to extradite Ottavio Quattrocchi, the Italian businessman and last principal accused of receiving payoffs in the Bofors deal. This is the second such rejection. Earlier, a Malaysian court rejected a similar request in 2003. However, the CBI says that it will study Friday's verdict for a possible appeal to the Argentine Supreme Court.Â
The correct legal position is that the CBI plays only a marginal role in taking a decision in this kind of cases. The final decision is taken by the Union Law Ministry in all cases wherein an appeal is to be filed either in a High court or the Supreme Court in India. It is the same with cases filed abroad for which all sanctions are to be accorded by the Law Ministry.
Confidential records, obtained and published by a newspaper, show that long before he was detained in Argentina on February 6, Quattrocchi had already been given a clean chit by the senior-most law officers - from the Attorney-General to the Law Secretary, from the CBI's Director of Prosecution to the Additional Solicitor-General.
It was this clean chit that Quattrocchi's lawyer Alejandro Freeland used in the El Dorado court to his client's advantage - a fact he admitted to the newspaper soon after Judge Hachiro Doi dismissed the agency's request. The CBI has until June 20 to file its appeal; Quattrocchi has been asked not to leave Argentina until June 18.
Freeland has told the newspaper that among the papers he presented to the judge was the opinion of CBI's Director of Prosecution SK Sharma - who was, ironically, present in the El Dorado courtroom - that the entire Bofors investigation had become untenable and that "there was no case".
The newspaper claims that it has a copy of Sharma's confidential opinion, though Freeland has refused to divulge how he got a copy. Freeland also added, "I showed (the judge) Sharma's opinion, as well as the two High Court judgements but the CBI did not even bring the High Court judgement of RS Sodhi with them. They withheld so much information that the judge saw through their game."
If the CBI withheld information, it perhaps had reason to - its record of being over-ruled by law officers at almost every step: From the High Court rulings to the decision to defreeze Rs 21 crore parked in his London accounts, which the agency said was linked to the alleged Bofors payoffs.
<b>Other points quoted from the official records include: </b>
On September 2, 2005, Sharma argued against challenging the High Court (Sodhi) verdict. He noted, "It would really be a travesty of justice and fair play, if accused (the Hindujas) are forced to face trial without any definite time and then at the end of the day - say after 15/20 years - the court passes an order of not guilty."
He also said he was against the CBI filing its first chargesheet (in 1999): "...we had no case under the Prevention of Corruption Act or for any offence under the Indian Penal Code or at least our case was very weak." Subsequently,
Law Secretary wrote on July 5, 2004: "The Bofors case was examined in this Department (the Law Ministry) vide notes produced and a view has been taken that it is not a fit case for filing an SLP in the Supreme Court."
Attorney-General of India wrote on the same day: "I have perused the papers; in particular, the careful summary prepared by ... Law Secretary. I agree with the view of the Law Secretary that this is not a fit case for filing a Special Leave Petition."
Additional Solicitor-General argued for defreezing of Quattrocchi's UK accounts on October 7, 2005, saying: "The CBI was unable to show that the funds had any link with the offence alleged. It is clear, that even as regards Quattrocchi, on a parity of reasoning, there is no authentic evidence to connect him with the alleged offence and the case against him cannot stand in a court of law."
Another Additional Solicitor-General B Datta, in a reported e-mail to CBI on December 23, 2005 (after his London visit where he asked for the defreezing of Quattrocchi's accounts) wrote: "The conclusion is that there is no likelihood of the case against Quattrocchi ever succeeding and thus he should not be prosecuted any further is founded on the factual position that the CBI does not have in its possession the necessary relevant and admissible evidence as required under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act."
Another shocking revelation is that law officers deputed by the Government of India to Britain kept the CBI in the dark on defreezing Quattrocchi's London accounts. Datta's e-mail reached 17 days later by when the money had been withdrawn. At the same time, the deputed law official told Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) officials in Britain to allow the defreezing of the accounts.
The CBI separately kept sending repeated reminders to the CPS that the accounts should remain frozen and was pushing diplomatic channels to uncover the money trail from Lugano, Switzerland, to London to connect the Rs 21 crore with the alleged Bofors kickbacks. The CBI has no authority over the law officers, whose term is co-terminus with the tenure of the Government.
These officers include the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, and a host of Additional Solicitor-Generals. The Law Ministry assigns them work. The system in the Government is that in any case the CBI takes a final decision after getting all the legal inputs.
There have been cases where legal officers at different levels have tendered conflicting advice and the Director has taken a final decision. But nowhere in the world the legal officer is the final authority. Here it appears that the legal officer became the final authority.
There may be difference of opinion on any issue between two law officers. In a way, this is healthy, provided it is an honest opinion based on facts and not on extraneous conditions or circumstance or considerations. In any event, if things go wrong, the fall guy is the CBI, which normally is made the scapegoat for the failures of others.
Agreed that there may have been two different opinions on the Bofors issue. But how did Quattrocchi's lawyer get hold of the confidential opinions of the Government law officers? Do we then have somebody in our system who smuggled all the papers to him so that Quattrocchi could use them to his advantage? In the entire exercise, the CBI was kept out of the picture except, perhaps as, the fall guy!
Obviously, Quattrocchi has friends in powerful places who have apparently gone out of the way to provide him with file notings. That there are people who, for love or money, can pass original notings to help an accused indicates that the country is facing a grave danger. Beginning with this, it can extend even to the defence of the nation.
Despite all the legal quibbling and hair-splitting by the Law Ministry officials, including CBI's Director of Prosecution, nobody has looked at the agreement entered into by AE Services with Bofors in November 1985 ---- that it would secure the contract before March 31, 1986. The contract was signed on March 24, 1986. Nobody has asked why Bofors transferred $ 7.34 million to Quattrocchi.
Documents showing all this and more were personally brought by me in January 1997 to India from Switzerland. The case against Quattrocchi is still strong as it is based on bank records. He can still be extradited, provided the Government has the will and deputes outstanding lawyers and not Government lawyers whose sole objective may be not to displease anybody in power.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Queen is doing her dance. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<i>Joginder Singh, former CBI Director, analyses the latest cover-up</i>
A court in El Dorado, Argentina, has rejected the CBI's request to extradite Ottavio Quattrocchi, the Italian businessman and last principal accused of receiving payoffs in the Bofors deal. This is the second such rejection. Earlier, a Malaysian court rejected a similar request in 2003. However, the CBI says that it will study Friday's verdict for a possible appeal to the Argentine Supreme Court.Â
The correct legal position is that the CBI plays only a marginal role in taking a decision in this kind of cases. The final decision is taken by the Union Law Ministry in all cases wherein an appeal is to be filed either in a High court or the Supreme Court in India. It is the same with cases filed abroad for which all sanctions are to be accorded by the Law Ministry.
Confidential records, obtained and published by a newspaper, show that long before he was detained in Argentina on February 6, Quattrocchi had already been given a clean chit by the senior-most law officers - from the Attorney-General to the Law Secretary, from the CBI's Director of Prosecution to the Additional Solicitor-General.
It was this clean chit that Quattrocchi's lawyer Alejandro Freeland used in the El Dorado court to his client's advantage - a fact he admitted to the newspaper soon after Judge Hachiro Doi dismissed the agency's request. The CBI has until June 20 to file its appeal; Quattrocchi has been asked not to leave Argentina until June 18.
Freeland has told the newspaper that among the papers he presented to the judge was the opinion of CBI's Director of Prosecution SK Sharma - who was, ironically, present in the El Dorado courtroom - that the entire Bofors investigation had become untenable and that "there was no case".
The newspaper claims that it has a copy of Sharma's confidential opinion, though Freeland has refused to divulge how he got a copy. Freeland also added, "I showed (the judge) Sharma's opinion, as well as the two High Court judgements but the CBI did not even bring the High Court judgement of RS Sodhi with them. They withheld so much information that the judge saw through their game."
If the CBI withheld information, it perhaps had reason to - its record of being over-ruled by law officers at almost every step: From the High Court rulings to the decision to defreeze Rs 21 crore parked in his London accounts, which the agency said was linked to the alleged Bofors payoffs.
<b>Other points quoted from the official records include: </b>
On September 2, 2005, Sharma argued against challenging the High Court (Sodhi) verdict. He noted, "It would really be a travesty of justice and fair play, if accused (the Hindujas) are forced to face trial without any definite time and then at the end of the day - say after 15/20 years - the court passes an order of not guilty."
He also said he was against the CBI filing its first chargesheet (in 1999): "...we had no case under the Prevention of Corruption Act or for any offence under the Indian Penal Code or at least our case was very weak." Subsequently,
Law Secretary wrote on July 5, 2004: "The Bofors case was examined in this Department (the Law Ministry) vide notes produced and a view has been taken that it is not a fit case for filing an SLP in the Supreme Court."
Attorney-General of India wrote on the same day: "I have perused the papers; in particular, the careful summary prepared by ... Law Secretary. I agree with the view of the Law Secretary that this is not a fit case for filing a Special Leave Petition."
Additional Solicitor-General argued for defreezing of Quattrocchi's UK accounts on October 7, 2005, saying: "The CBI was unable to show that the funds had any link with the offence alleged. It is clear, that even as regards Quattrocchi, on a parity of reasoning, there is no authentic evidence to connect him with the alleged offence and the case against him cannot stand in a court of law."
Another Additional Solicitor-General B Datta, in a reported e-mail to CBI on December 23, 2005 (after his London visit where he asked for the defreezing of Quattrocchi's accounts) wrote: "The conclusion is that there is no likelihood of the case against Quattrocchi ever succeeding and thus he should not be prosecuted any further is founded on the factual position that the CBI does not have in its possession the necessary relevant and admissible evidence as required under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act."
Another shocking revelation is that law officers deputed by the Government of India to Britain kept the CBI in the dark on defreezing Quattrocchi's London accounts. Datta's e-mail reached 17 days later by when the money had been withdrawn. At the same time, the deputed law official told Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) officials in Britain to allow the defreezing of the accounts.
The CBI separately kept sending repeated reminders to the CPS that the accounts should remain frozen and was pushing diplomatic channels to uncover the money trail from Lugano, Switzerland, to London to connect the Rs 21 crore with the alleged Bofors kickbacks. The CBI has no authority over the law officers, whose term is co-terminus with the tenure of the Government.
These officers include the Attorney-General, Solicitor-General, and a host of Additional Solicitor-Generals. The Law Ministry assigns them work. The system in the Government is that in any case the CBI takes a final decision after getting all the legal inputs.
There have been cases where legal officers at different levels have tendered conflicting advice and the Director has taken a final decision. But nowhere in the world the legal officer is the final authority. Here it appears that the legal officer became the final authority.
There may be difference of opinion on any issue between two law officers. In a way, this is healthy, provided it is an honest opinion based on facts and not on extraneous conditions or circumstance or considerations. In any event, if things go wrong, the fall guy is the CBI, which normally is made the scapegoat for the failures of others.
Agreed that there may have been two different opinions on the Bofors issue. But how did Quattrocchi's lawyer get hold of the confidential opinions of the Government law officers? Do we then have somebody in our system who smuggled all the papers to him so that Quattrocchi could use them to his advantage? In the entire exercise, the CBI was kept out of the picture except, perhaps as, the fall guy!
Obviously, Quattrocchi has friends in powerful places who have apparently gone out of the way to provide him with file notings. That there are people who, for love or money, can pass original notings to help an accused indicates that the country is facing a grave danger. Beginning with this, it can extend even to the defence of the nation.
Despite all the legal quibbling and hair-splitting by the Law Ministry officials, including CBI's Director of Prosecution, nobody has looked at the agreement entered into by AE Services with Bofors in November 1985 ---- that it would secure the contract before March 31, 1986. The contract was signed on March 24, 1986. Nobody has asked why Bofors transferred $ 7.34 million to Quattrocchi.
Documents showing all this and more were personally brought by me in January 1997 to India from Switzerland. The case against Quattrocchi is still strong as it is based on bank records. He can still be extradited, provided the Government has the will and deputes outstanding lawyers and not Government lawyers whose sole objective may be not to displease anybody in power.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Queen is doing her dance. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->