Action delayed as Govt’s legal nominee, CBI differ on Quattrocchi

The inability to initiate fresh legal action against Quattrocchi may lead to the release of the businessman’s frozen account in a London bank. His account of $1 million and Euro 3 million (around Rs 21 crore) has been frozen since July 2003. Officials from the Crown Prosecution Service have been frequently reminding the CBI about this risk.

Last year, Stephen Hellman, counsel for the Crown Prosecution Service, had suggested that the CBI initiate fresh action against Quattrocchi—declare him a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code and attach his properties under Section 83 of the Act.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) asked the CBI to get ASG B Dutta’s approval before initiating the action. The ASG’s written advice, dated December 9, 2004, apparently took the agency by surprise.

The ASG said there was ‘‘no justification’’ for taking the action. His reasons: one, Section 82 CrPC could not be applied on Quattrocchi since he did not hail from India or, even if he did, had left India for good and did not have any home or homestead in a town or village in India where he can said to be staying ‘‘ordinarily as a resident’’

Two, the ASG stated, non-execution of a warrant was justified since the CBI had made an unsuccessful attempt to extradite Quattrocchi. Dutta argued that the CBI did not yet have evidence linking the ‘‘commission of the offence’’ as alleged by the agency with the ‘‘derivation/obtention of the funds.’’

Confronted with the ASG’s opinion, the CBI’s investigating officers and legal advisors put down their own opinions on the file. They have said that nowhere does the CrPC state that proclamation (of an offender) can be done only for an Indian national.

The CBI’s team has also stated that the ASG’s opinion that Quattrocchi cannot be described as a ‘‘fugitive criminal’’ is debatable and that a Red Corner Notice (RCN) was issued by Interpol against him on the basis of which a Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) was still in force.

Thus, action under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPc could be resorted to.

Though the ASG’s advice reached the CBI headquarters two months ago, a final view is yet to be taken by Director U S Mishra. While Mishra was on tour and could not be contacted, the CBI spokesman said, ‘‘The issue of initiating fresh legal action against Ottavio Quattrocchi is still under consideration. No final decision has been reached.’’

ASG Dutta, when contacted, told The Indian Express that he could not discuss the nature of his advice on the Quattrocchi matter since it was ‘‘confidential’’ in nature.

Earlier, the CBI had a June 2004 deadline for providing the British authorities with ‘‘substantive proof’’ that Quattrocchi’s funds were part of the kickback from the Bofors gun deal, but that evidence is nowhere in sight.

The Interpol had informed the CBI that Quattrocchi’s fozen funds with BSI AG London had been remitted from BSI Lugano, Switzerland in May 2003. This is significant since the CBI was earlier pursuing the line that the funds had been remitted by Quattrocchi from the Bahamas.

The Swiss authorities are still to reply to CBI’s query whether they will allow an investigation into the transaction if a fresh Letter Rogatory was issued.