Author: Ritu Sarin
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: January 30, 2010
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/for-his-padma-chatwal-should-thank-two-directors-of-the-cbi/573276/0
Introduction: Vijay Shankar and present director Ashwani Kumar over-ruled
their own investigators' advise and decided not appeal his discharge in fraud
case
Defending its decision to award the Padma
Bhushan to NRI hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal, the Government said "there
is nothing adverse on record" against him. What it did not say is that
there's nothing adverse against him because two successive Directors of the
CBI rejected the advice of a string of investigators - including a Special
Director and Joint Director - and decided not to appeal his discharge.
This despite the fact that Chatwal was an
accused in the CBI's records for 14 years, the agency had filed two chargesheets
naming him as accused; sent Letters Rogatory abroad; even sent a probe team
to the US and put Chatwal and his wife behind bars from February 2 to February
5, 1997.
Official records accessed by The Indian Express
show that on May 30, 2007 and August 10, 2008, former CBI Director Vijay Shankar
and the agency's present Director Ashwani Kumar respectively signed orders
saying there was no need to challenge the discharge of Sant Singh Chatwal
and his co-accused.
This, in effect, closed the principal case
of bank fraud in which Chatwal had been embroiled for over a decade.
The Indian Express sent a detailed questionnaire
to the CBI asking to explain the discharge remaining unchallenged. All that
spokesman Harsh Bahal said, in reply, was: "Nothing remains (of the cases)."
Along with four others, Chatwal was charged
with being part of a "criminal conspiracy" to defraud the Bank of
India's New York branch to the tune of US $8,992,815 (Rs 28.32 crore). In
all, four chargesheets were filed by the CBI, with Chatwal named as accused
in two. The trials in the other two cases are still in progress.
On January 24, 2007, the special judge issued
a discharge order ruling that there was "insufficient evidence"
and no "criminal mens rea" could be established.
But CBI records reveal that:
o Special Public Prosecutor Beena Raizada,
the agency's Superintendent of Police Rajesh Nirwan and Deputy Inspector General
A M Prasad said, on the record, that an appeal should be filed.
o The CBI then sought the opinion of E E Karthak, General Manager, Reserve
Bank of India, who also said that an appeal should be filed in the High Court.
o U S Dutt, CBI Joint Director, in his opinion
dated May 9, 2007, described the alleged fraud as a "gross violation
of banking norms" and strongly called for challenging the discharge order.
At this stage, the Chatwal case took a turn
remarkably similar to what happened in a string of "politically sensitive"
cases as exposed in an investigation by The Indian Express (May 2009). The
agency armed itself with the "opinion" of S K Sharma, the CBI's
Director of Prosecution, to move to bury the case.
On May 17, 2007, Sharma gave a five-page opinion
ending with the clincher: "I am not able to find any flaw with the discharge
order by the court to recommend revision..."
Despite this, the very next day, CBI's Special
Director M L Sharma took a contrasting view: "On balance I am of the
view that we may have the impugned order taken up in the High Court by filing
a revision petition."
And on May 30, then Director S Vijay Shankar
signed off: "I tend to agree with the view of the DoP that there is no
flaw with the correctness of the discharge order and the matter be allowed
to rest."
Similar was the journey towards burial in
the second chargesheet.
Here, too, the CBI was sharply divided on
what to do when the discharge order came on March 31, 2008 on grounds that
"sufficient proof" could not be placed before the court and that
the statement of a key player was not recorded.
o The agency's Deputy Legal Advisor, Deputy
Inspector General and Additional Legal Advisor all opined in favour of an
immediate appeal.
o This was backed by Joint Director U S Dutt
who on June 24, 2008 wrote: "I agree with the opinion of DLA, DIG and
ALA for asking for a revision in this case."
o Once again, DoP S K Sharma took the contrary
stand. On July 24, 2008, he said: "...considering the merits of the accused,
I agree with special counsel that there is no manifest illegality or the order
is not patently erroneous so as to justify interference by a review court."
On August 10, 2008, CBI chief Ashwani Kumar, barely a week after he took charge,
endorsed Sharma's decision.
