UPA says it will free Q of Bofors taint

This move comes in the wake of the withdrawal of a 12-year-old Red Corner Notice by the CBI against Quattrocchi,first reported by The Indian Express.

To justify the RCN withdrawal,both the Law Ministry and the CBI had said they had gone by “advice from the highest legal quarters” — a reference to then Attorney General Milon Banerji who,in a four-page opinion in October 2008,had pointed out that the CBI did not challenge the February 2004 High Court order quashing all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Bofors case. And argued: “Since no Special Leave Petition was filed on this ground… the Red Corner Notice is invalid.”

What Banerji did not mention — and what was buried in confidential files accessed by The Indian Express — that it was Banerji himself who,barely two months after the Congress-led government came to power,overruled CBI investigators and directed the agency not to file the SLP against the High Court order.

In the Supreme Court today,Subramanium asked the bench “to dismiss the case” pending against Quattrocchi,saying the government had “failed” to establish any role of the businessman in alleged pay-offs.

Subramanium contended that as of date,there was no law under which Quattrocchi could be tried. “After taking into account all facts of the case,the government has decided to withdraw all sorts of cases pending against him,” he said,listing steps taken by the government earlier to bring the Italian businessman to India. “We have to take a call on the matter and the government has taken a call after considering all aspects,” he said.

Advocate Ajay Agrawal,who had challenged the de-freezing of Quattrocchi’s bank account in London,opposed the submission,telling the court that “Quattrocchi has been treated by this government as the son-in-law of this country.”

The government,on the other hand,told the court there was no evidence under the PCA and,therefore,no appeal was filed against the HC decision. At this,the bench observed: “If the matter is not alive in trial court what can we do? Then there is no necessity to keep matters pending in this court. It appears that they (CBI) want to withdraw the case.” The matter was adjourned till December.

That the UPA government had decided not to pursue the case against Quattrocchi was evident from a series of steps it took in recent years:

* In December 2005,Additional Solicitor General B Dutta was sent to London where he told officials of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that “no useful purpose would be served by maintaining the restraint order” on Quattrocchi’s bank accounts. Once his accounts were defrozen in January 2006,Quattrocchi immediately withdrew Rs 21 crore.

* In 2007,after Interpol detained Quattrocchi,the Law Ministry decided not to appeal against an Argentine court order rejecting a CBI request for extradition.

* In October 2008,Milon Banerji,in his legal opinion,said the RCN against Quattrocchi was “invalid”. This was cited by the CBI to withdraw the notice.