‘Nothing new in ITAT’s ruling in Bofors case’
Pressing for closure of the Bofors pay-offs case against Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) today contended before a Delhi court that there was “nothing new” in yesterday’s Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order that would obstruct withdrawal of the over two-decade-old criminal proceedings.
“I am not disputing what the tribunal has said. That is the case of the prosecutor (CBI) and it is also mentioned in the chargesheet. There is nothing new,” Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra told Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Vinod Yadav.
The court, which was to pass its order on the politically-sensitive case, started hearing arguments again after Supreme Court lawyer Ajay Agarwal said the matter be looked into afresh in the light of the ITAT’s order that kickbacks of Rs 41 crore were paid to the late Win Chaddha and Quattrocchi in the howitzer gun deal.
The court, which initially expressed reservation on taking into account ITAT’s order saying it was passed by a different forum and for different reason, agreed to hear the contentions of the CBI again as well as of Agarwal, who is opposing the investigating agency’s application. Initiating the arguments, Malhotra, on behalf of the CBI, said it had not got any fresh instruction from the government pertaining to the withdrawal of the case against 70-year-old Quattrocchi in the light of the tribunal’s order.
He said the court should decide the CBI’s plea for withdrawing the case without going into its merits and it should only consider whether the application has been filed “bonafide, in good faith and in public interest”.
“There is no need for the court to go into the merits of the case. The court should look only whether there is a bonafide intention on the part of CBI or not. Merits have no relevance in this case,” he said.
More From This Section
The ITAT order, which had said kickbacks were paid to late Chaddha and Quattrocchi in the Howitzer gun deal, was placed before the court. Countering CBI’s arguments, Agarwal said Union law minister
M Veerappa Moily yesterday had in a statement said the government will examine the issue afresh in the light of ITAT order. At this, the CMM asked the ASG about the government’s stand. “I would like to know your comments on Law Minister’s statement,” CMM Yadav said. Malhotra, however, said he was not aware of any such statement and the application for withdrawal of the proceedings against Quattrocchi was filed after examining all aspects of the case.
The court, which heard the case for over three hours, adjourned the proceedings till January 6, when Agarwal expressed his inability to continue in view of his mother’s sudden illness.
During the arguments, Agarwal alleged the CBI was trying to protect Quattrocchi, as he has always been “very close” to the family of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. “There is no bonafide, public interest and good faith behind CBI’s decision to withdraw the case against Quattrocchi,” he said.
The CBI had registered a criminal case on January 20, 1990 to probe who were the beneficiaries of the pay-offs in the 1986 Bofors gun deal. After completing its probe, the agency filed two chargsheets in the case first on October 22, 1999 and the second one on October 9, 2000.
Reading out the excerpts of the book Who owns CBI-The Naked Truth by retired CBI officer B R Lall, he claimed the Italian businessman and his wife, Maria, were having a very intimate relationship with the Gandhis and they used to meet very frequently. The CBI had, in October 2009, sought permission of the court to withdraw the case against Quattrocchi, saying his continued prosecution was “unjustified” in the light of various factors including the failed attempts of CBI to extradite him.
“The continuance of prosecution against Quattrocchi will be unjustified. It is considered expedient in the interest of justice that the proceedings against him should not be continued and be withdrawn,” the CBI had pleaded in its nine-page application. Quattrocchi has never appeared before any court in the country. CBI had failed on two occasions in its attempt to get Quattrocchi extradited — first from Malaysia in 2003 and then from Argentina in 2007. However, the plea of the investigating agency was opposed by Agarwal.