New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that even Karti Chidambaram knows that he will not be immediately arrested in a case of corruption, alleging he took bribes from private firms to facilitate foreign investment clearances by the Union Finance Ministry. Karti's father and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram was the finance minister at the relevant time.
"Even you know they are not going to arrest you. If they had to arrest you, they could have done it long back. But they didn't (sic). You don't even apprehend before us that they will arrest you. So what's your problem in joining the investigation and appear before the investigating officer?" a bench led by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar asked senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who appeared for Karti.
The bench, also comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud, further pointed out that Karti has not applied for a pre-arrest bail till date even though the FIR was lodged by the CBI almost three months ago.
"The FIR is dated 15th May but you haven't even filed for anticipatory bail. You have sought for quashing the FIR but didn't seek a pre-arrest bail. So you know nobody is going to arrest you," observed the court.
It added that whenever FIRs alleging serious ramifications are filed against the accused, the first thing they do is to seek a pre-arrest bail. "But you haven't asked for it before any court," emphasised the bench.
Subramanium, on his part, said that Karti has challenged the entire prosecution against him and that a petition for annulment of charges is pending before the Madras High Court. "Besides, it is a question of my fundamental right to travel. When can a right to travel be interfered with? My client is not a fugitive nor has he interfered with the administration of justice. He was in the High Court on July 21 when his petition was being heard," said the lawyer.
The bench, however, was not impressed. "We don't appreciate your telling us he was in the court on July 21. He was not asked to be in the court. He was instead called to join the investigation".
The court was hearing an appeal moved by the CBI against a Madras HC order whereby the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Karti on June 16 was stayed. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the agency, as they pressed for restraining Karti from travelling abroad pending investigation.
The bench told Subramanium that there appeared to be nothing wrong with the issuance of the LOC since Karti has failed to appear before the Investigating Officer despite notices. "The LOC says you should not travel abroad. What's wrong about it? There are multiple things that a LOC could do, including seeking somebody's immediate arrest. But they have only sought to prevent you from travelling abroad," remarked the court.
It clarified that the correctness of the allegations or otherwise was not an issue before the apex court and that it was only concerned about availability of an accused before the investigators.
"Our limited point is whether you have co-operated with the investigation or not. The answer is 'No'. You filed the petition before the high court but there was no stay on the investigation. Just because a matter is sub-judice cannot mean you will not appear before the Investigating Officer. You must show your bonafide," it added.
The Court said that the first notice sought Karti's presence before the investigators on June 29 but he sought another date on the ground of not being in India. "Another notice was issued to you on July 4, summoning you to join investigation on July 21 but you don't go. You have disobeyed the notices...you must go before the Investigating officer and participate in the investigation. How will any investigation in this country succeed if people don’t appear before the investigators," it observed.
At this, Subramanium said that he would advise his client not to travel abroad till the time the court takes up the matter next on Friday and so, any order need not be passed. But the bench stayed the high court order, saying it had many bad experiences.
"There is a high court order staying your LOC. Now we must also pass an order suspending it. If we accept your statement and you still fly abroad, what will you breach? Just a statement before this Court. We have many bad experiences when many respectable people did not come back after they got favourable orders from us," added the bench, mentioning Aircel-Maxis case wherein Malaysian businessman T Ananda Krishnan did not come to India despite several court notices.
While fixing the matter for Friday, it further said: "They could have taken your passport...arrest you but they have done nothing. Now you should tell us when you are going to join the investigation." Subramanium said he would take instructions from his client and will revert on Friday.
Interestingly, Subramanium, during the proceeding, also showed documents to contend that the LOC was prepared even before the notice summoning Karti to join the probe was readied. The LOC was however issued a day later than the notice and by the time, the LOC was issued, Karti was already abroad. Subramanium claimed in SC that it was only in the third week of July when his client got to know there could be a LOC against him.
In the case, apart from Karti, CBN Reddy, Ravi Viswanathan, Mohanan Rajesh and S Bhaskararaman are the other accused who had moved the HC against the LOC.
The FIR was filed on May 15 against Karti and INX Media along with eight others for the alleged irregularities in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to the media house for foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2007.
CBI has claimed that some incriminating documents were discovered during the raids and that there was a likelihood of Karti not coming back and tamper evidence if he is allowed to travel abroad.
Comments
0 comment