I’m not an accused, I’m witness: Benoy Babu tells Delhi HC in ED’s excise policy probe

Rohatgi argued that the predicate offence, which is in the CBI’s case, is the foundation of all ED cases, which is the case here as well. The CBI chargesheet was filed on November 24, 2022, Babu’s witness statement was recorded on November 9, 2022; ED filed prosecution complaint on November 26, 2022 and a supplementary complaint was filed on January 6, 2023. Rohatgi argued that his client was not named in the CBI FIR or chargesheet.

“One name will come again and again, the name is Vijay Nair… the publicity head of the local government in Delhi called AAP… Some people from the southern part of India who wanted to be part under this policy as wholesalers or retailers so the allegation is that Nair was in touch with people from the south group so as to tinker with the policy in its formulation in order that the south group will get certain extra benefits… and that there would be quid pro quo between money taken by Nair and persons who gave the bribe. I have nothing to do… I’m not a wholesaler, I’m not a retailer, I’m an employee of a large manufacturing company in the world. I don’t make policies for either my company nor do I have power to influence the policy to be made by the government,” Rohatgi told court.

“If CBI chargesheet does not have anything to do with Babu… then the nature of allegations by ED will then have no basis. I’m not an accused, I’m a witness. They are going to rely on my statement to prove the case in CBI against Nair and others. If that foundation is missing then what is the proceeds of crime which came into my hand. Proceeds of crime is the alleged bribe given to Mr Nair, that proceeds of crime has to be given by Nair to somebody to be laundered to become white money,” Rohatgi said.

No money was recovered from Babu or from Nair during the investigation, Rohatgi told the court.

“In that, what role can Babu play, he has not given the bribe he has not got a benefit… In fact, money has not been recovered from Vijay Nair, forget about me,” Rohatgi argued.

Rohatgi further argued that Babu is only an employee of the Pernod Ricard India, part of the parent company, which is a global liquor manufacturer. “He is not a member of top echelons for purposes of implementing the policy,” Rohatgi said.

He referred to the ED’s supplementary prosecution complaint to say that “completely new statements are made therein which are wholly missing in the CBI chargesheet”.

“Suddenly he (Babu) is in collusion with Nair… nothing about him in predicate offence, they feel they have become predicate offence, this is how they are acting,” Rohatgi said.

Rohatgi read the complaint which alleged that Babu, in collusion with south group, created a cartel so that Ricard can may gain a market share and increase their profit and the cartelisation was his “brainchild”

“Where is the question of cartelisation? Every part of this is missing in the main document. They can’t act like another CBI. You can’t make out a new case of a predicate offence. They are going into a field which is prohibited. They have jettisoned the findings of conspiracy in the chargesheet of CBI by picking on these things. You want to arrest someone from PR so you arrest him,” Rohatgi said. The matter is now listed on April 6 for further arguments.