Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

No appeal filed so set Q free, says AG, doesn’t mention he scuttled appeal

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Ottavio quattrocchi
    Attorney General Milon Banerji himself who directed CBI not to file SLP against HC order.
    To justify withdrawing the Red Corner Notice against Bofors-accused Ottavio Quattrocchi, as first reported in The Indian Express today, both the Law Ministry and the Central Bureau of Investigation said they went by “advice from the highest legal quarters.”

    That’s a reference to Attorney General Milon Banerji who, on October 24 last year, sent a four-page opinion pointing out that the CBI did not challenge the February 2004 order of the High Court 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’s buried in confidential files accessed by The Indian Express is a telling fact: it was Attorney General Milon Banerji himself who, barely two months after the Congress-led Manmohan Singh Government came to power, overruled CBI investigators and directed the agency not to file the SLP against the High Court order.

    Ads by Google

    This is what Banerji signed on file on July 5, 2004: “I have perused the papers, in particular, the careful summary prepared by Shri R L Meena, Law Secretary. I agree with the view of the Law Secretary that this is not a fit case for filing a Special Leave Petition.”

    The Government also cited the views of O P Verma, Deputy Legal Advisor, who also argued against filing of the SLP. File notings show that CBI’s Joint Director and Additional Director both made identical comments: “We perhaps have no option other than to allow the matter to rest.”

    Once the Law Ministry (read the Government) had ruled, the then CBI Director U S Misra fell in line. “In view of the opinion of the Law Department,” he said, “there is no merit in the case to file SLP in the Supreme Court against the order of High Court.”

    The way in which the 2004 High Court order remained unchallenged is, perhaps, the most brazen instance of the CBI immediately changing its line of investigation in the Bofors case with regime change at the Centre.

    Records obtained by The Indian Express show that before the UPA came to power, the CBI’s key investigators in the case (between February-April 2004) had recommended filing the SLP. These included N Natrajan, Chief Public Prosecutor in the case who prepared a 12-page opinion for an appeal; and Deputy Legal Advisor U R Prasad.

    On April 24, 2004, barely three weeks before the UPA came to power, CBI’s Director of Prosecution S K Sharma stated: “Both these counsel have recommended to go in for SLP against the order of the Delhi High Court. We may act accordingly and send a proposal to the Cabinet Secretariat for instructin g the Central Agency Section to file the SLP in Supreme Court.”

    This is the same Sharma who has now argued for withdrawing the Red Corner Notice under the UPA Government.

    The 28-page draft SLP, in fact, is with The Indian Express. Questioned on this sudden turnaround after their Government came to power, Law Minister H R Bhardwaj today said if a draft SLP existed, it was not forwarded to the Law Ministry.

    “It must have been circulated among junior CBI officers,” he said. Asked what he made of the AG’s opinion then and his opinion now, he said: “There is no conflict of interest.”

    CBI levaing QuattrocchiBy: swaminathanpattabhiraman | 30-Apr-2009 Reply | Forward now even fourth pillar of democracy is afraid of corrupted government - Emergency was much better days - no question raised since 12 years - now cat is out - all cries are fould cries.Initially The Hindu taken-up the cause - left it half way - then the Indian Express - whether Government really bothered about the opinion. Sonia says no one need to give certificate - that is the condition today.post Rajiv regime - Congress Government always favour Italian Businessmenhow many cases other than BOFORS came to light - looked in to by Media.Let me give you a case where Italian Shipbuilder was illegally awarded TDV Ship Building contract by Ministry of Earth Sciences where Government of India lost about Rs.400.00 crores. The complaint was registered by Central Vigilance Commission under CVC Ref: 611/05/10 - CVC found that MoES estimation, change of specifications, tender finalisation repeated negotiation are clear violation of codal norms - and MoES reply is against factual position - still Commission advised closure of the case.Under RTI Act information can be obtained from CVC to see how Italian Shipbuilder was illegally favoured - and the said Italian Shipbuilder got several government Contracts when Global Shipyards were starved of contracts
    One of their achievement!!!By: pinto | 30-Apr-2009 Reply | Forward Making CBI to Congress Backing Institution! Shame on all those who support Congress.....Wake up you people.
    Freeing Bofors Pay off of Italian QwattrocchiBy: Choday | 30-Apr-2009 Reply | Forward Spineless Technocrat PM does not feel shy to take orders from an Italian matriculate and a former waitress from 10 Janapath, but he does not want to debate with the opposition leader Advani, claiming he (Advani) does not deserve to PM. Also, he wants to continue as a PM by coming to parliament BACK DOOR (of largest democracy of the world)without facing the electorate for another another five years. The chief executive of the largest democracy (remote controlled by a matriculate waitress) is afraid to face the electorate even after running as such five years but does not afraid to take orders from a matriculate and within a month after coming to power in 2004, his Govt given a clean chit to Mr. Ottavio Qwattrocchi in Bofors Pay off scandal after taking orders from the Italian former Waitress, because Mr. Qwattrocchi is her friend. India used to treat him (PM, Singh) as an able honest technocrat prior to become PM. Now, the spineless PM remote controlled by a matriculate. What a shame?. Bofors pay off money has gone to Italy by giving a green signal (freeing MR. Qwattrocchi's UK Bank account) to free the scandal pay off. Now, every Indian knows that he (Mr.Singh) sacrificed his honesty to the power. He does not care for the democratic principles (and is afraid to face electroate).
    Uncle QuottrocchiBy: varind | 29-Apr-2009 Reply | Forward Withdrawl of Red Corner Notice is a national shame and it is strange our honest and strong PM and world's most inflential woman Mrs. Sonia Gandhi are both silent. After all charity begins at home!!! Why Law Minister and CBI felt the urgency?
    High Court verdict was also against CBIBy: astrix91 | 29-Apr-2009 Reply | Forward We are all discussing the SLP against the High Court orders, why are we not discussing the High COurt ORder itself which was favoring the defendant (Quatrochi) and against the CBI? Mind you this verdict was given by High Court during NDA regime so definitely not a conspiracy by congress by influencing the investigations by CBI to weaken the case against Quatrochi. This so called moralistic journalism is rather unfortunate since it is aimed at generating a demented public opinion by resorting to selective analysis of facts.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.