New Delhi, January 23
The Supreme Court today questioned the CBI about how it had communicated directly with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in London about defreezing of the bank accounts of Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, an accused in the Rs 64-crore Bofors pay-offs case, without the approval of the trial court here before which a chargesheet against the fugitive was pending. The court pointed out that the accounts were frozen in July 2003 on the basis of Letters Rogatory (LR) issued by the trial judge in the Capital on the request of the CBI itself.
The query came in the wake of CBI’s affidavit stating that the entire amount deposited in Quattrocchi’s bank accounts (approximately Rs 23 crore) was withdrawn by him on January 16, the day the Supreme Court had directed the agency to re-freeze the account to ensure that he could not take away the money even as the CBI submitted that the agency was not required to consult the trial judge.
But
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramaniam, who was appearing for the Centre and the CBI at the same time, told the court that the agency had not taken any decision regarding the “closure” of the case and investigation against Quattrocchi, who faced Red Corner Notice (RCN) in the
case.
Subramaniam claimed that freezing of accounts had been done in the process of collection of evidence, hence the CBI was not required to take the approval of the trial judge for their de-freezing.
A Bench of Chief Justice Y.K Sabharwal, Mr Justice C.K Thakker and Mr Justice R.V Raveendran, which seemed to be not much convinced on the stand taken by the CBI and put various searching questions on the entire episode, said it would examine the matter whether the agency was legally right in not taking the “approval” of the trial court, which had issued the LR for freezing of the accounts on July 21, 2003 which was acted upon by the London High Court after four days on July 25.
Despite the apex court order, the CBI, whose counsel B.Dutta went to London to communicate to the CPS about defreezing, has virtually expressed its helplessness in maintaining the status quo as Quattrocchi proved to be quick enough to act soon after an order for discharge of the accounts was passed by the London High Court on January 11.
The court asked, “Is it not necessary for CBI when it has come to the conclusion that there is not enough material (against Quattrocchi), was it not obligatory for the CBI to go to the Special Court (in Delhi) to take it into confidence and then go to the CPS.”
It pointed out that there were two aspects of the case— first related to the money that was deposited in the accounts and second whether it was linked to the case pending before the trial court. Had the CBI taken a decision for closure or going ahead with the process of law, it asked.
Subramaniam said the case was now pending before Delhi Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) against Quattrocchi and the CBI had not taken any decision regarding its closure.
“As far as the case before the CMM is concerned, the CBI has not taken any stand and there is nothing in its files regarding that. There is no closure report before the trial judge and therefore, it (investigation) cannot be terminated,” he said.
The court gave two weeks’ time to the CBI to place on record all documents and supply copies of the same to advocate Ajay Agrawal, who had brought the matter to the court in a public interest litigation (PIL).
