01-13-2006, 10:19 PM
How government of India tried to bury Bofors case (TIMES NEWS NETWORK)
Dhananjay Mahapatra & Vishwa Mohan
[ Friday, January 13, 2006 12:54:52 am TIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
NEW DELHI: A week before additional solicitor-general B Dutta rushed to London to brief the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in connection with Ottavio Quattrocchi's case, the government had shot down CBI's proposal that one of its officers accompany him.
The move to brief the CPS had been initiated by the then CBI director U S Misra and a meeting between the agency and the government was held on November 16.
Sources said it was decided at the meeting to send a CBI officer along with a legal officer to London as the agency was supposed to brief CPS about case.
The same month, the agency wrote to the department of personnel and training for permission. DoPT's response on December 17 was a clear no.
Incidentally by that time, new CBI director Vijay Shankar, who was earlier involved in the Bofors investigation took charge.
An official said DoPT had, in fact, asked CBI in December to brief Dutta who was selected to be present before the CPS. Subsequently, three agency officials briefed the ASG before the latter's departure to London.
Dutta was told about the chargesheet and Red Corner Notice against Quattrocchi besides the efforts to trace the fugitive's bank accounts and the ongoing probe to find out its linkages with the kickbacks, the official added.
It is, however, not clear to CBI as to why the Centre did not agree to send a CBI officer along with Dutta. They even wonder whether Dutta had actually exceeded his brief and told the CPS that there was no evidence against Quattrocchi.
An official explained that there may be no evidence to link the kickback with Quattrocchi's two frozen accounts in London, but there was enough evidence against him in the Bofors case. That's why the fugitive was chargesheeted and a RCN is still pending against him, he said.
A glance at the Bofors case gives an impression about a systematic approach to bury the politically-sensitive case.
The Delhi High Court in February 2004 quashed the corruption charges against all accused in the case but maintained cheating and conspiracy charges against the Hinduja brothers.
With general elections round the corner, the NDA was so sure of coming back to power that it wanted to show its fairness by awaiting the people's verdict before appealing in SC against the HC order.
But NDA lost and Congress came to power in May 2004. Thereafter began the systematic approach to bury the case. The UPA did not appeal against the Delhi HC order which attained finality after the end of the 90-day limitation period.
On May 27, 2004, Dutta, appearing for CBI, told HC that the agency did not have authenticated copies of the Swiss bank documents relating to Rs 65-crore kickbacks in the gun deal.
In one stroke, Dutta nullified the years of efforts of the agency resulting in the public handing over of Swiss bank documents in the late 90s to the then CBI chief Joginder Singh at Berne in Switzerland.
Dutta's concession was good enough for Justice R S Sodhi to allow the appeal of the Hinduja brothers to quash charges and lambast CBI for wasting Rs 250 crore on the investigation.
The CBI was not perturbed by the HC order, for they knew at least three instances where the SC had overturned such orders.
But the government had other plans. It sought an opinion from another ASG ââ Kalyan Pathan ââ whether it should file an appeal in the SC. Pathak obliged by opining that it is not a fit case for filing an appeal in the SC.
And now, this opinion of ASG Pathak has been used by the agency to defreeze the accounts of Quattrocchi, who according to the CBI chargesheet had "unhindered access" to the powers that be.
If the agency was to send Dutta for the purpose of defreezing Quattrocchi's account, why was it keen on the Italian businessman's extradition from Malaysia? This a question that remains unanswered.
Dhananjay Mahapatra & Vishwa Mohan
[ Friday, January 13, 2006 12:54:52 am TIMES NEWS NETWORK ]
NEW DELHI: A week before additional solicitor-general B Dutta rushed to London to brief the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in connection with Ottavio Quattrocchi's case, the government had shot down CBI's proposal that one of its officers accompany him.
The move to brief the CPS had been initiated by the then CBI director U S Misra and a meeting between the agency and the government was held on November 16.
Sources said it was decided at the meeting to send a CBI officer along with a legal officer to London as the agency was supposed to brief CPS about case.
The same month, the agency wrote to the department of personnel and training for permission. DoPT's response on December 17 was a clear no.
Incidentally by that time, new CBI director Vijay Shankar, who was earlier involved in the Bofors investigation took charge.
An official said DoPT had, in fact, asked CBI in December to brief Dutta who was selected to be present before the CPS. Subsequently, three agency officials briefed the ASG before the latter's departure to London.
Dutta was told about the chargesheet and Red Corner Notice against Quattrocchi besides the efforts to trace the fugitive's bank accounts and the ongoing probe to find out its linkages with the kickbacks, the official added.
It is, however, not clear to CBI as to why the Centre did not agree to send a CBI officer along with Dutta. They even wonder whether Dutta had actually exceeded his brief and told the CPS that there was no evidence against Quattrocchi.
An official explained that there may be no evidence to link the kickback with Quattrocchi's two frozen accounts in London, but there was enough evidence against him in the Bofors case. That's why the fugitive was chargesheeted and a RCN is still pending against him, he said.
A glance at the Bofors case gives an impression about a systematic approach to bury the politically-sensitive case.
The Delhi High Court in February 2004 quashed the corruption charges against all accused in the case but maintained cheating and conspiracy charges against the Hinduja brothers.
With general elections round the corner, the NDA was so sure of coming back to power that it wanted to show its fairness by awaiting the people's verdict before appealing in SC against the HC order.
But NDA lost and Congress came to power in May 2004. Thereafter began the systematic approach to bury the case. The UPA did not appeal against the Delhi HC order which attained finality after the end of the 90-day limitation period.
On May 27, 2004, Dutta, appearing for CBI, told HC that the agency did not have authenticated copies of the Swiss bank documents relating to Rs 65-crore kickbacks in the gun deal.
In one stroke, Dutta nullified the years of efforts of the agency resulting in the public handing over of Swiss bank documents in the late 90s to the then CBI chief Joginder Singh at Berne in Switzerland.
Dutta's concession was good enough for Justice R S Sodhi to allow the appeal of the Hinduja brothers to quash charges and lambast CBI for wasting Rs 250 crore on the investigation.
The CBI was not perturbed by the HC order, for they knew at least three instances where the SC had overturned such orders.
But the government had other plans. It sought an opinion from another ASG ââ Kalyan Pathan ââ whether it should file an appeal in the SC. Pathak obliged by opining that it is not a fit case for filing an appeal in the SC.
And now, this opinion of ASG Pathak has been used by the agency to defreeze the accounts of Quattrocchi, who according to the CBI chargesheet had "unhindered access" to the powers that be.
If the agency was to send Dutta for the purpose of defreezing Quattrocchi's account, why was it keen on the Italian businessman's extradition from Malaysia? This a question that remains unanswered.