Tags:
Journalism of Courage
NEW DELHI, January 9: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday informed the Delhi High Court that Subramaniam Swamy had changed material facts in the copy of the original complaint filed along with his revision petition against Finance Minister P Chidambaram.
Arguing for the Government, Attorney General Ashok Desai contended before Justice A.K.Srivastava that "it was not a question of mistake here and there but addition of materials which were not there in the original complaint subsequent to its dismissal by the special judge." Both Desai and senior counsel P P Rao with Arun Jaitley, submitted that only on the ground of changes made in the copy of original complaint, Swamy’s revision petition was liable to be thrown out.
The bench, however, granted time to Dr Swamy, who sought time from the court to explain the improvements made in the copy of the complaint. The matter would come up for hearing on January 12.
Contending that the discrepancies made in the copy of the complaint could also invite contempt proceedings, Desai said "this is too serious a matter to be swept under the carpet." Chidambaram had filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC for initiating proceedings under Section 193 read with Section 199 of the IPC for interpolating certain facts in the revision petition, through his counsel senior advocate Arun Jaitley with Rakesh Tiku and had urged the bench to direct the CBI to inquire into the acts and conduct of Swamy. Swamy had sought prosecution of Chidambaram under the Anti-Corruption law for allegedly employing corrupt practices to buy promoters shares of Fairgrowth Financial Services Limited at a very low price.
While dealing with the case, Justice Jaspal Singh, on December 11 had observed that "the copy of the complaint filed along with the petition (by Swamy) is different in material particulars from the compliant filed before the special judge."
Petition of Urea accused rejected
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a revision petition by two top officials of aTurkish firm accused in the Rs 133 crore urea import scam. The petition sought that the trial court order to proceed against them be quashed.
Justice Shamim dismissed as without merit, the plea of Cihan Karanci and Tuncay Alankus, top official of Karsan Limited which failed to deliver two tonnes of urea despite taking Rs 133 crore contract money in advance from National Fertiliser Limited (NFL). The judge also rejected their plea for grant of bail.
In their application, the two officials sought revision of the January 7 order of Special Judge Ajit Bharihoke. The order took cognizance of the chargesheet filed against them and several others and had issued summons. Bharihoke had summoned all accused in the case, including former NFL officials, C K Ramakrishnan, D S Kanwar, Sambasiva Rao (Indian agent of Karsan), Sanjeeva Rao (a relative of former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao), Prakash Yadav (son of former Union minister Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav), A E Pinto (London based businessman and a Karsan agent) and B Mallesan Gaud (employee of Sambasiva Rao). Taking cognizance of the CBI chargesheet, special judge Ajit Bharihoke had said there was sufficient "prima facie" evidence to proceed against the accused persons.
CBI seeks to cross-examine hostile JMM witness
The CBI on Friday sought to cross-examine again a key witness, Devender Mukhia, in the JMM MPs bribery case in the light of an affidavit filed by him with the Delhi High Court in July last year.
Mukhia had disowned his statement on Wednesday purportedly given to the CBI about the conspiracy and payment of bribe to defeat the July 28, 1993 no-confidence motion against the P V Narasimha Rao government. The multi-crore JMM bribery case had received another setback with one more witness turning hostile in the court on Thursday. Captain Dilawar Singh, former office secretary of Janata Dal (A) yesterday denied having sent any written statement to the CBI Director on the alleged role of top politicians in payment of money to Opposition MPs. A key prosecution witness, Singh contradicted his statements, earlier recorded by the CBI.
He is the second prosecution witness to have turned hostile after Devender Mukhia made a volte face in the case on Wednesday. Mukhia denied made any statement though he was interrogated by the CBI. During recording to evidence before the trial court of Judge Ajit Bharihoke Singh denied having any knowledge of the transactions. He, however, admitted having told the CBI details relating to meetings Ajit Singh had with the MPs of his party and various Congress leaders, including Bhajan Lal, to discuss the situation arising from the motion. Following his denial, CBI counsel A K Dutt moved an application in the court seeking to place on record a signed letter allegedly written by him to the CBI director in September 1996 giving almost similar details contained in the statement.
