This is an archive article published on October 3, 2015
CBI court accepts closure report in 1998 TGM deal
The court also observed that "with regard to role of middleman in financial transaction, no evidence was found"...in the accounts of firms known to Sahni.
The court stated that “pointing fingers on the defence deal” demoralises the forces and “brings in lethargy at the bureaucratic level” regarding the procurement.
A special CBI court has accepted the closure report filed by the agency in a 1998 case of alleged irregularities in the procurement of Terminally Guided Munitions (TGM) worth over Rs 150 crore that were to be used in the Kargil conflict. The court stated that “pointing fingers on the defence deal” demoralises the forces and “brings in lethargy at the bureaucratic level” regarding the procurement.
The CBI had earlier alleged that Major (retd) S J Singh and defence middleman M S Sahni, through a criminal conspiracy with unidentified officials of defence ministry and Army Headquarters and Russia-based K B P Design Bureau, had induced the ministry to purchase 1,000 TGMs (Krasnopol) and 10 laser designators worth Rs 151 crore. The TGM was identified as an urgent requirement to be used with Bofors units.
[related-post]
“Every life of a soldier is precious to the nation… The defence forces must have an edge over its opponent in terms of the equipment, weapons and other necessary logistics. There must not be any delay in any procurement, as the delay may not only result in our forces losing advantage… but also tends to bring in frustration in the forces,” Special judge Gurdeep Singh observed.
Story continues below this ad
“Questions may be asked, but unless the gross violation and irregularity is found, the decision making authority should not be looked at with suspicion,” he said while accepting the closure report.
The court also observed that “with regard to role of middleman in financial transaction, no evidence was found”…in the accounts of firms known to Sahni.
On CBI’s earlier allegation that Krasnopol was not tested against moving target, the court said the Army Headquarters had confirmed that such facilities still do not exist in India.
The CBI had earlier alleged that contrary to the laid down procedure, the Price Negotiation Committee was formed before the approval of Cabinet Committee on Security and before acceptance of trial evaluation report.
Kaunain Sheriff M is an award-winning investigative journalist and the National Health Editor at The Indian Express. He is the author of Johnson & Johnson Files: The Indian Secrets of a Global Giant, an investigation into one of the world’s most powerful pharmaceutical companies.
With over a decade of experience, Kaunain brings deep expertise in three areas of investigative journalism: law, health, and data. He currently leads The Indian Express newsroom’s in-depth coverage of health.
His work has earned some of the most prestigious honours in journalism, including the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism, the Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) Award, and the Mumbai Press Club’s Red Ink Award.
Kaunain has also collaborated on major global investigations. He was part of the Implant Files project with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which exposed malpractices in the medical device industry across the world. He also contributed to an international investigation that uncovered how a Chinese big-data firm was monitoring thousands of prominent Indian individuals and institutions in real time.
Over the years, he has reported on several high-profile criminal trials, including the Hashimpura massacre, the 2G spectrum scam, and the coal block allocation case. Within The Indian Express, he has been honoured three times with the Indian Express Excellence Award for his investigations—on the anti-Sikh riots, the Vyapam exam scam, and the abuse of the National Security Act in Uttar Pradesh. ... Read More
2 min read
The court stated that “pointing fingers on the defence deal” demoralises the forces and “brings in lethargy at the bureaucratic level” regarding the procurement.
