ID :
28310
Tue, 11/04/2008 - 14:07
Auther :

Centre passes buck to NDA Govt for collapse of Bofors case

New Delhi, Nov 3 (PTI) The Centre Monday sought to pass the buck in the Supreme Court to the previous National Democratic Alliance (N.D.A.) regime for the virtual collapse of the Bofors case saying that major charges against the accused were dropped by the Delhi High Court in 2004 after a statement made by the then government.

The Centre contended that "nothing was left" in the
matter after the High Court by its two separate verdicts held
that no case was made out under the Prevention of Corruption
Act (P.C.A.) and quashed charges against all accused except
Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi.

Additional Solicitor General (A.S.G.) Gopal Subramanium
said P.C.A. charges were quashed on February 4, 2004 against
the accused after his predecessor in the N.D.A. government,
senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, had told the High Court that
there was no evidence to proceed under the Act.

He said later on May 31, 2005, the High Court had quashed
other charges framed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
against the accused.

The High Court had quashed the charges after
Subramanium's colleague A.S.G. Bhagwan Dutta had conceded that
C.B.I. was unable to get either the authenticated or originals
of Swiss documents on the basis of which the investigating
agency had proceeded against the accused.

The apex court was hearing petitions relating to
Quattrocchi, who has not yet appeared in any Indian court, and
contempt petition against former Central Bureau of
Investigation (C.B.I.) Director Vijay Shanker for allegedly
misleading the court over the extradition proceedings
initiated against the Italian businessman.

The court wanted to know if the decisions of the High
Court were challenged or not. "Had anybody challenged the
discharge of the accused by the High Court," a Bench headed by
Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan asked.

Subramanium said C.B.I. has not filed any appeal.

Advocate Ajay Agrawal, who has filed a petition accusing
the C.B.I. of helping Quattrocchi, said after the
investigating agency failed to challenge the May 31, 2005
judgement of the High Court he had filed an appeal which was
admitted by the apex court and is pending for three years.

However, the advocate, who had earlier moved the apex
court in January 2006 against the defreezing of Quattrocchi's
bank account in London, had a tough time convincing the Bench
that a case of contempt was made out against Shanker, who
retired recently as C.B.I. Director.

He had filed the petition in March 2007 accusing C.B.I.
and its Director of consistently misleading the court over the
extradition proceedings initiated against Quattrocchi.

The Bench, also comprising Justice Aftab Alam, wanted
to know from the advocate as to what was the basis of alleging
that contempt had been committed by the former C.B.I.
Director.

"What is the nature of the contempt," the Bench wanted
to know expressing its disapproval over the response of the
advocate that "there was interference by the C.B.I. and its
then Director in the administration of justice by concealing
the material fact".

The Bench deferred the hearing saying that he has to
prima facie convince the court that there is evidence to press
for contempt as he has been unable to explain what is the
contempt committed by Shanker.

During an earlier hearing on September 5, the advocate
alleged "It is ex-facie clear that the C.B.I. is helping
Quattrocchi ever since the change of guard at the Centre after
the General Elections in 2004 in the country and at every step
C.B.I. is facilitating Quattrocchi so that he may go free from
the Bofors investigation."

Agrawal, who had filed an application questioning the
government's effort in securing the foreign national's
extradition from Argentina after he was detained on February
6, 2007 at an airport, said the El Dorado court declined
India's request as the original arrest order of 1997 by a
court here was not produced by the C.B.I.

However, Subramanium said non-existence of any
extradition treaty with Argentina came in the way of getting
back Quattrocchi, who was detained at the Iguazu International
Airport on the basis of a Red Corner notice issued by Interpol
and later released on bail on February 23, 2007.

He said though there was no extradition treaty with
Argentina, the authorities of the two country had a dialogue
on the issue.

Quattrocchi, 69, walked to freedom after the El Dorado
court rejected India's plea for his extradition on June 8,
2007.

Besides questioning C.B.I.'s effort in Argentina, the
advocate also referred to the defreezing of the Italian
businessman's bank account in London in 2006 to substantiate
the allegation that the accused was being helped by the C.B.I.

"Defreezing of accounts in London and facilitating
syphoning off money from the frozen account, facilitating
Quattrocchi's freedom by withholding relevant documents and
court's orders (Indian) from Argentinian court are just the
tip of the iceberg of the favours being bestowed by C.B.I. to
Quattrocchi," the affidavit by the advocate had said.

At an earlier hearing, the Centre had brushed aside
the allegation that it was covertly assisting the Italian
businessman. It was alleged that the opinion of C.B.I.
Director, and the Government's law officers relating to the
case were supplied to Quattrocchi's counsel in Argentina.

The advocate alleged that the C.B.I. has not placed
before the court all the documents relating to Quattrocchi's
extradition from Argentina.

He alleged that the government had "deliberately" not
tried hard to get the Italian businessman extradited.

The advocate sought disclosure of confidential
material, including opinions of C.B.I. and law officers of the
Centre, which allegedly facilitated the rejection of India's
request for Quattrocchi's extradition.

He claimed that the Indian authorities had concealed
from the El Dorado Court that the Supreme Court here has
already admitted a petition challenging the Delhi High Court
verdict quashing charges against other accused in the case.

Agrawal had filed the appeal against the May 31, 2005
judgement of the High Court after the C.B.I. had failed to
approach the apex court within the mandatory 90-day period.
PTI RKS

X