COMMENTARY
INTERVIEW
SPECIALS
CHAT
ARCHIVES

Delhi HC concerned at 'tardy' CBI probe in Mukta-Panna deal

The Delhi high court on Wednesday questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation for not registering a regular case, as recommended by the investigating officer, against Reliance Industries Ltd, Enron Corporation, and certain public officials for granting the Mukta-Panna oil field contract to the joint venture.

Expressing serious concern over the 'tardy' progress of the investigation in the case, a division bench consisting of Chief Justice Ajay Prakash Misra and Justice Dalveer Bhandari said that the CBI should go through the recommendation of Y K Singh, a superintendent of police in the CBI, that the RIL-Enron joint venture had paid illegal gratification in acquiring the contract from the government.

Singh had in his report in March last year stated that requisite approval of the CBI director should be taken before a regular case was registered as the matter involved former petroleum minister Satish Sharma. But no case has till now been registered in the matter, though more than one and a half years have gone by.

The court was hearing a public interest petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation which sought the scrapping of the controversial contract on the grounds that it would cause a huge loss to the public exchequer. The manner in which the contract was acquired was ''questionable,'' the CPIL said.

Giving a number of instructions to the CBI, the bench asked the investigating agency to state how the 'Part II file' which contained the recommendation was non-existent.

The bench told CBI counsel R S Jamuar to probe the petitioner's allegation that an attempt was being made by the deputy inspector general, (anti-corruption branch), Bombay, or CBI Joint Director Mahendra Kumawat to destroy this Part II file.

The judges ordered the CBI to reply to the court's queries within two weeks and adjourned the case to October 14.

Counsel for the petitioner Shanti Bhushan contended in the court that Y P Singh, superintendent of police of the anti-corruption unit of the CBI, had in March 1996 recommended the registration of a regular case against the contract, but the Part II file was not forwarded to the headquarters and withheld by Mahendra Kumawat.

The CBI affidavit in the court said that the DIG anti-corruption branch, K P Raghuvanshi, has intimated that no such file was in existence in the anti-corruption branch of Bombay.

''In view of the slow pace of investigation by the CBI and the seriousness of the allegations, the CBI should clarify its stand on all these points, including whether certain no tings of the officials were there in the files or not,'' the bench ruled.

To the petitioner's demand that a retired judge be appointed to oversee the CBI probe, the court said, ''Let us first scrutinise the efforts and the investigation of the CBI and then we will decide on this matter.''

Besides the institution of a judicial probe, Shanti Bhushan also demanded that Raghuvanshi, Kumawat and two other senior administrative officials be asked to file affidavits on their position in the matter and whether the allegations levelled against them were false.

Bhushan said that the CBI was working under 'political interference' and the appointment of a retired judge to supervise the investigation will remove this fear from the people's mind.

Additional Solicitor General Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that a retired judge can be appointed to monitor the probe only when the investigation has not been initiated or there was some suspicion on the ongoing probe.

However, in this case the investigation has already been going on and the second situation rarely arises.

The court observed that though in the case of Bofors the investigation had been going on for several years, the pace of it has been really slow. ''Was not a similar situation there with this case also,'' the bench asked.

The CBI counsel said, ''We are still to come to the conclusion whether a criminal cognizable offence has been committed.''

He said that when the preliminary investigation in the case was launched most of the agency's senior officials were busy with the Harshad Mehta securities scam case.

The bench said that if apprehensions were being raised about the missing file, the CBI should clear it fast as it will be in the fair interest of the agency and the investigation.

''We are not testing whether the figures regarding the purchase or sale of oil are right or wrong. We only want to be satisfied on all the questions,'' the bench observed.

Bhushan said, ''The CBI was still working under political pressure. Even the government is also under pressure. The CBI investigation under a retired judge is necessary as there will be no intervention in the matter thereafter.''

He said that after the statement of the private secretary of former petroleum minister Captain Satish Sharma that more than Rs 40 million was received for granting the contract to the RIL-Enron joint venture, a prima facie case was made out and the matter was eligible for handing over to a retired judge for his supervision.

Even after the expiry of about one and a half years, the CBI has not registered a regular case against the contract, the senior counsel said.

He said that even after the CBI did register a preliminary inquiry, it was registered in the bank securities and fraud cell in Delhi rather than in the anti-corruption branch of the CBI in Bombay, as has been admitted by the agency in its counter-affidavit, when the matter had absolutely nothing to do with the bank securities.

Bhushan said that the petitioners were in possession of the transcript of the last two pages of the Part II file which showed that after Y P Singh's recommendations of March 23 last year for registration of a regular case, the file had been dealt with by the then deputy inspector-general, K Subramaniam, on April 3, and thereafter by Kumawat on the next day and finally by the present DIG Raghuvanshi on April 11.

After that, the file has been kept off the record by Kumawat and Raghuvanshi and has been separated from the Part I file.

The recommendations of Y P Singh read: ''In view of the confirmation of the findings of the branch by the CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General of India) it is recommended that instead of preliminary enquiry, we may register a regular case against RIL and Enron and against unknown public servant. This seems necessary as any delay may lead to loss of evidence and searches may prove to be futile.''

He also recommended the search of the premises of RIL and Enron in order to recover the documents in a case which can be termed as the single biggest fraud ever in the country.

''We may have to seek approval of the CBI director before a regular case may be registered. Since in this case former petroleum minister Satish Sharma is likely to be involved and the same had been referred to in our earlier note, we may keep department of personnel and training informed of the developments,'' he said in his report.

''It is reiterated that in this case we may have to take a very early action so that incriminating evidences could be collected well in time. More so because of the unprecedented dimension of this fraud which has now been confirmed by the CAG,'' the note concluded.

This Part II file was not sent to the headquarters on the ground that the CAG report is yet to be submitted and that the CBI should await the report, Bhushan alleged, and added that however, it is clear that it was not sent even after the CAG submitted its report towards the end of 1996. The result is that till date, no regular case has been registered, no searches have been conducted, and hardly any progress has been made even in the preliminary inquiry.

It is obvious that the officers concerned of the CBI have clearly connived with the persons who would have been the subject matter of this investigation and destroyed official files in order to delay and scuttle the probe and kill this case.

Hence, a retired judge should be appointed to monitor the investigation and an inquiry be made into the suppression or destruction of the Part II file of the anti-corruption unit of the CBI, Bombay, and the role of Joint Director Kumawat and Raghuvanshi in the matter.

UNI