But Verma’s reinstatement appears to be a toothless act of tokenism given how he is not allowed to take any policy decisions till a Central Vigilance Committee probe on corruption charges against him gets over. Additionally a high powered committee comprising the Prime Minister, leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. Oppostition parties though have welcomed Verma’s reinstatement.

The post CBI vs CBI: SC reinstates Alok Verma less than a month before retirement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was enraged at the alleged leak of a confidential CBI report to be submitted with the SC. The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of the pleas filed by Central Bureau of Investigation Director Alok Verma and non-governmental organisation Common Cause against the government’s decision to send the agency chief on leave, to November 29.
 
But after saying that “None of you deserve a hearing,” the Supreme Court agreed to hear Verma’s plea on Tuesday challenging the government’s decision to divest him of duties minutes after adjourning the case.
 
The Central Vigilance Commission had on November 12 submitted a report on Verma to the Supreme Court. On Monday, Verma responded to the Central Vigilance Commission’s report on him in a sealed cover.
 
However, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi handed over a report published in The Wire to CBI’s chief lawyer Fali Nariman. The media report has some content which is part of Verma’s reply to the Central Vigilance Commission.
 
Gogoi was reportedly “deeply upset” that the confidential report had been leaked to the media. “I am disturbed,” he said. “Any leak was unauthorised. Free press and responsible press should go hand in hand.”
 
“It is only for you Mr Nariman and not as a counsel for Alok Verma,” the bench said while handing over the news article to the lawyer, PTI reported. “We have given this to you as you are one of the most respected and senior members of the institution. Please help us.”
 
Nariman, after going through the report, said it was “totally unauthorised” and that he was very “disturbed and shocked”. “This gives a new twist to the word responsible press and freedom of the press,” he added, demanding that the journalists concerned be summoned to court.
 
“We are not hearing [the case] today,” Gogoi said. “We don’t think any of you deserve any hearing.”
 
The chief justice also expressed displeasure over the publication of a petition by CBI officer Manish Kumar Sinha against his transfer by the Centre.
 
When the hearing resumed, the Chief Justice said, “Yesterday, we refused the mentioning and we expressed that the highest degree of confidentiality will be maintained, but for some strange reason the papers were taken away and given to everyone.” The judges added, “The court is not a platform. It is a place for adjudication. We intend to set it right.”
 
However, in a statement, The Wire said that its report had Verma’s response to questions the Central Vigilance Commission had put forward to him. “These were not in a sealed cover and were not meant for the SC,” the website said. “As for his response to CVC’s final report, handed over to SC in sealed cover, we haven’t seen/reported that.”

 
Later, Nariman told the top court that there had been no violation of the Supreme Court’s order. He corroborated The Wire’s claim that its report had Verma’s answers to questions the vigilance commission had asked him.
 
Gogoi condemned a request made by Verma’s lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan to give his client more time to file a reply to the vigilance commission’s report. To this, Nariman said he was unaware of the submission and had come to know of it only through the media.
 
“Nobody had asked him (Shankaranarayanan) to do so. It was totally unauthorised. I was never informed. Nobody asked him to mention the matter. I am very disturbed,” Nariman told the bench, adding that he and his junior had worked late in the night to prepare Verma’s response. “How can this come? It’s a leak. I myself is shattered the way it has been done,” he said in a report by The India Express.
 
The CJI then adjourned the hearing to November 29 and said the bench does not want to record any reasons for it.
 
“Verma was accused by his deputy Rakesh Asthana of taking bribes from a Hyderabad-based businessman being investigated by the agency. Verma accused Asthana of the same crime.
As the CBI’s top two accused each other of corruption, they were both sent on forced leave and several officers investigating Asthana were transferred on the night of October 23,” a report said.

The post Apex Court angry over leak in CBI case, adjourns hearing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: In a crucial turn of events, another CBI officer, Joint Director MK Sinha, filed a petition in the Supreme court alleging that National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval interfered with the CBI’s investigations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana and botched up the search to be carried out at his residence.
 
He filed a complaint against his sudden transfer to Nagpur. He was among the large numbers of officers who were transferred overnight on October 23. The midnight coup had also resulted in CBI director Alok Verma being dismissed from his post.
 
“He alleged that the two middlemen involved in the case were close to Doval. He has also alleged that the complainant in the case, businessman Sana Sathish Babu, had told him that Union Minister of State for Coal and Mines Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhari had been paid bribes to the tune of several crores of rupees for alleged help in matters related to the CBI. An MP from Gujarat, Chaudhari is known to be close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” reported Indian Express.
 
“In his over 30-page petition, Manish, an IPS officer from the batch of 2000, alleged that businessman Manoj Prasad, who was arrested by the CBI on 16 October in a bribery case involving another business Satish Babu Sana, boasted of his father’s (Dineshwar Prasad) close ties with National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval. “This was one of the first things Manoj claimed on being brought to CBI HQ and expressed complete surprise and anger as to how CBI could pick him up, despite his close links with the NSA Shri Doval,” the petition said in a report by Firstpost.
 
The writ petition can be read here:

 
Another senior CBI officer Ashwini Kumar Gupta on Saturday moved the Supreme Court alleging that his repatriation to the Intelligence Bureau (IB) was done with malafide intention.
 
Selected extracts from Sinha’s plea as published by The Print are reproduced below:
 
On interference in probe
“The manner, timing and the speed with which overnight, in a single stroke, the investigation team was disbanded without assigning any formal reason, and all the main team members of the team were thrown out to remote places in a punitive and stigmatic manner, itself portends very ominous signals, not only for the professional career of investigating officers but also the investigation of the entire case. It further reflects that how levers of CBI is controlled by powerful persons just to fit it into their personal objectives of exonerating or implicating certain individuals, irrespective of the merit of the case.”
 
“It is beyond the capability of any agency to do a fair and just work in this case under the present circumstances unless benevolent protection of Hon’ble Court is extended. Investigation was not allowed to take its course and pace. The efforts of the agency to get evidences through secret operations were negated. The persons involved were cautioned. Crucial evidence could not be secured. Investigation, going forward, is certainly a daunting and an uphill task. In fact, the Investigation of this case appears derailed and doomed unless this Hon’ble Court pro-actively intervenes.”
 
On Ajit Doval
“On the morning of 16.10.2018, the accused Shri Manoj Prasad (alleged middleman) was intercepted at Delhi Airport on his arrival from Dubai and brought to CBI HQ. During the first few hours of his arrival at CBI HO, Manoj was garrulous and arrogant, both at the same time, and in equal measure. He was interviewed by the applicant and others. He tried his best to ward off the investigation by dropping names of ‘high and mighty’ and mentioning his ‘top contacts’ to create fear in our mind.
 
“The relevant conversation of his initial outburst is being placed on record here. As per Manoj Prasad, Shri Dineshwar Prasad, father of Manoj and Somesh, retired as Joint Secretary, R&AW and has close acquaintance with the present National Security Advisor Shri Ajit K. Doval (“NSA”). This was one of the first things Manoj claimed on being brought to CBI HQ and expressed complete surprise and anger as to how CBI could pick him up, despite his close links with the NSA Shri Doval.
 
“He started bragging and claimed that his brother Shri Somesh is very close to an officer at Dubai (name withheld) and to Samant Goel, presently Special Secretary, R&AW and he can get us ‘finished off’ / “kicked out’.
 
“Manoj taunted us that you people have no standing whatsoever and therefore should “stay in limits” and let him free. He claimed that recently his brother Somesh and Samant Goel, helped the NSA Shri Ajit Doval on an important personal matter. He further claimed that India opted out of a contest from INTERPOL. Regarding genuineness of this claim of Manoj, no attempt was made to verify the claim regarding the NSA Shri Doval.”
 
“Ultimately, the proposal seeking permission to search was put on record by the IO on 22.10.2018. However, the same was not allowed and a query was raised by the Director as to why the searches are to be done.
 
“Upon being queried, the Director/Petitoner herein replied that he was not getting clearance from the NSA/Shri Doval. It was then resolved, as a face saving measure, to take recourse to the Quashing Petition, filed by Shri Rakesh Asthana, pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which was coming up for hearing on 23.10.2018. That is why, during the hearing dated 23.10.2018, the CBI had insisted that the electronic devices such as the cell phone sets be preserved.
 
“While the search was on, a phone call was received from Director CBI instructing to stop the search. At that time, the Applicant herein was sitting in the BS& FC office and asked the Director, to which the Director replied that this instruction has come from NSA Shri Doval.”
 
On Haribhai Chaudhary
“On the forenoon of 20.10.2018, the Applicant herein interviewed the Complainant- Shri Sana at CBI HO. He stood by the contents of his complaint with respect to CBI officials. That apart, he also claimed that:-
 
“Sometime in first fortnight of June 2018, a few crores of rupees was paid to Shri Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary, presently Minister of State for Coal and Mines in Government of India.
 
“As per Shri Sana, Shri Haribhai had intervened with the Senior officers of CBI through the office of the Minister of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension [“MOS (P)”], to whom, apparently, the Director – CBI reports to.
 
“The money was paid through one Vipul of Ahmedabad. These facts were disclosed by Sana to me on 20.10.2018 in the forenoon. I immediately reported the matter to the Director and the AD (AK Sharma).
 
“Discreet enquiries were conducted and a source informed that there are calls intercepted by another central agency in first fortnight of June, wherein there is talk between Shri K Laxma Reddy, MLA, Medchal, Hyderabad, and Shri Sana on money being sent to the tune of one or two crores.”
 
On K.V. Chaudhary
“Shri Sathish Babu Sana also disclosed that he met the CVC Shri KV Chowdhary alongwith one Gorantla Ramesh (close relative of CVC Shri KV Chowdhary and owner of Delhi Public School Hyderabad, as per Sana) somewhere in Delhi (exact date and location was not informed) and that they discussed Moin Qureshi’s case. As per Sana, in the year 2011, Shri Gorantla Ramesh sold some land and gave around Rs 4 crores out of the said sale consideration to Shri Sana, in the same month, in which Shri Sana had given Rs 50 Lakhs to Moin Qureshi. Therefore, Shri Gorantla Ramesh was examined by CBI in the Moin Qureshi’s case.
 
“As per Shri Sana, subsequently, the CVC Shri KV Chowdhary called Shri Rakesh Asthana to his residence and made inquiries. Shri Rakesh Asthana informed to the CVC that there is not much in evidence against them. There is no illegality in this, but the same is put on record here for the sake of completeness. No verification was undertaken and the same is based on disclosure made by Sana.”
 
On Suresh Chandra
“Additionally, the Applicant became aware that while the proceedings were going on in the CVC against the Petitioner herein – Shri Alok Verma, the Union Law Secretary Shri Suresh Chandra waded in to the issue. On 8.11.2018, the office of Shri Sana was repeatedly approached by one Ms. Rekha Rani, IAS officer of Andhra Pradesh Cadre, claiming that the Union Law Secretary, who is in London, wants to speak to Shri Sana. The London number of the Union Law Secretary was communicated.
 
“Shri Sana spoke to him on Whatsapp on the evening of 08.11.2018. The Union Law Secretary Shri Suresh Chandra said that he was in London for some work related to Nirav Modi case, that he was trying to contact him for last 4/5 days in order to convey message of Cabinet Secretary Shri PK Sinha that the Union Government will offer full protection to him, that there will be a drastic change on Tuesday (13th) and that he (Sana) should meet him (Suresh Chandra) on Wednesday(14th), that even IB is not able to track his (Sana) movement, that he also tried to communicate the message through one Chamundeshwarnath with whom he met in his London hotel. The call was ended by Sana promising to call him again later in the night.
 
“Once again Suresh Chandra enquired with Ms Rekha Rani on 13th November and asked her on presence of Sana. It appears that Shri Suresh Chandra was more forthcoming this time and requested Ms Rekha Rani to ensure that Sana be helpful, that all his future problems will be taken care of and that he should be brought to Delhi on Thursday or Friday i.e., 15/16.11.2018. This last (previous) sentence is as disclosed to Sana by Ms Rekha Rani.”
 

The post NSA Ajit Doval interfered in Asthana investigation: CBI Jt. Director appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ordered authorities to hand over the CVC report to CBI director Alok Verma on Friday.  
 
The court gave Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Alok Verma time till November 19 to respond to the report filed by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which is probing infighting within the central agency. The apex court directed the authorities to hand over the report to Verma in a sealed cover and ordered that confidentiality of the document be maintained. The SC fixed November 20 as the next date of hearing.
 
During the hearing Friday, the Supreme Court pointed out that the CVC report on Verma was “complimentary” on some charges, “not so complimentary” on some charges and “very uncomplimentary” on some charges. The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, added that further inquiry was required into some charges.
 
The SC has also ordered that a copy of the report be given to Attorney General K K Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. It turned down Special CBI Director Rakesh Asthana’s request that the CVC report be provided to him as well.
 
The SC was hearing petitions filed by Verma and NGO Common Cause challenging the government’s order to divest the CBI Director of his duties. The SC on October 26 had given the CVC two weeks to complete its probe against Verma, which is being monitored by its retired judge, Justice A K Patnaik. On Monday, the CVC had submitted its preliminary report to the court.
 
Patnaik has also filed a note in SC.
 
Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who have been engaged in a tussle, were divested of their duties by the Department of Personnel and Training on October 23.
 
Related Articles:
CBI VS CBI: Delay in submitting report pushes crucial hearing to Nov 16
SC to the Rescue, CVC Report to be Scrutinised: CBI Controversy
Spy vs. Spy: Institutional Collapse of CBI
 

The post SC orders CVC to handover probe report to CBI Director Alok Verma appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) submitted its inquiry report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover on Monday. The inquiry was ordered on a bribery case against Central Bureau of Investigation Director (CBI) Alok Kumar Verma.
 
The CVC inquiry was based on a letter dated August 24, 2018, received by the CVC from the Cabinet Secretary. The CVC had said the allegations against Verma were “serious in nature having prima facie vigilance angle.
 
The report was submitted before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in the courtroom. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the CVC, stated that the inquiry into allegations against Mr. Verma was over on November 10.
 
A 24-hour delay by the CVC to file the report forced SC to adjourn the hearing to November 16. It was originally scheduled for Monday. Chief Justice Gogoi made the court’s displeasure clear when the filing was delayed.
 
CVC was ordered to complete its preliminary inquiry report within two weeks against Verma on Oct 26. Verma was sent on leave by the centre and divested of his duties after his feud with CBI special director Rakesh Asthana became public.
 
Verma appeared before the three-member CVC headed by K V Chowdary and is said to have given point-wise refusal to all the allegations levelled against him by his deputy.
 
The CBI, on the other hand, also handed over to the top court the agency’s report on the decisions taken by its interim director Nageshwar Rao from October 23, ever since he took charge as CBI head.
 
Asthana accused Verma of accepting bribes from meat exporter Moin Qureshi after Verma accused him of being corrupt.
 
“The feud between Verma and Asthana escalated last month, leading to the registration of an FIR against Asthana and others, including Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, who is in CBI custody in an alleged bribery case. After the tussle between the two senior officers became public, the Centre, in a sudden overnight strike on October 23, divested both Verma and Asthana of their duties and sent them on leave. The very next day, Verma challenged his removal in the top court that issued notices to both the central government and the CVC. The court directed the CVC to complete the inquiry against the CBI director within two weeks. Meanwhile, the court had also barred IPS officer M Nageswara Rao, who has been given interim charge of the CBI, from taking any major decision,” a report said.
 

The post CBI VS CBI: Delay in submitting report pushes crucial hearing to Nov 16 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Former Supreme Court Judge, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, recently said that all respectable Indian institutions are under threat. He retired as the second most senior judge of the highest court in the country in June. Talking about the recent CBI and RBI scandals, he said that these institutions losing their autonomy should have been seen as a sign when he and three other judges had held a press conference against the lack of transparency in the Supreme Court in January this year.  
 
On one hand, the director and special director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were sent on leave over graft allegations and on the other hand, the official of Reserve Bank of India and the Finance Ministry were caught in a verbal spat over the functioning of the agency and its limits.
 
In an exclusive interview with Bloomberg Quint, Justice Chelameswar said, “If the highest court of this country, a constitutional organ, is disturbed in its functioning, then why talk about other organisations that aren’t constitutional organisations?”
 
Talking about CBI and RBI he said, “Their status is slightly lesser than constitutional. CBI isn’t even a statutory organisation. It’s a mythical beast. God alone knows what are its legal structures. In fact, there’s a judgment of the Gauhati High Court saying it has no statutory backing. The appeal is pending. The matter is still not decided by the court. I think these are matters which should be decided on priority basis. Nobody wants these things to be decided. These things, undecided, give a lot of scope for speculation. The result is all this.”
 
He raised pertinent questions about why was he and other judges being asked to resolve their matter internally and what came out of accusing him of having a personal agenda. “What’s happening in the CBI? What’s happening in the Reserve Bank (of India)? Apart from their legal status, are they not important institutions in the governance of this country? When we held the press conference there were people, great people, learned intellectuals, who believed that I had a personal agenda. So why is it happening in CBI? Why is it happening in the RBI?” he said in the interview.
 
Citizens of Justice and Peace had accessed the letter given to the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and reported that, “Four Judges of Supreme Court, J Chelameswar, J Ranjan Gogoi, J Madan B. Lokur and J Kurian Joseph wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India addressing their concern about the way allocation of few cases has been done by the Hon’ble Justice of India. In the letter, they have said the convention of recognizing the privilege of the CJI to form the roster and assign the cases is only devised for a disciplined and efficient working of the court and is not based on any superior authority, legal or factual of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. Also, it is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the Chief Justice is only the first among the equals- nothing more and nothing less.”
 
They accused the Chief Justice India of assigning cases that have far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution to benches ‘of their preference’ without any rational basis for such assignment. They warned the CJI, “this must be guarded against at all costs.” “We are not mentioning the details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of the institution to some extent”, the concerned judges wrote.
 
In the span of eight months following this unprecedented press conference, the CJI was declared the ‘Master of Roster’ three times by the SC.
 
Read Also:
The Fearless Justice Chelameswar
Guardians of Democracy: 4 judges openly challenge Nepotism in the SC
All Is Not Well within the SC & this needs Correction: Kamini Jaiswal

The post Supreme Court’s functions were disturbed, why so surprised about RBI and CBI asks Justice Chelameswar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Congress, meanwhile, is staging an agitation, led by party chief Rahul Gandhi, outside the agency’s headquarters against the government’s move. On Thursday, Rahul hit out at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, terming the Centre’s as a “panic reaction” by the PM who knew that he would be “finished” if the CBI began an inquiry into the Rafale fighter jet deal.

The Supreme Court has issued notice to Centre in petition by Alok Verma and Common Cause challenging leave order by Central government. Most significantly, the Interim Director of CBI M Nagehswar Rao should not take any major policy decision, orders Supreme Court and all decisions taken by M Nageshwar Rao from October 23 to be submitted in sealed cover to SC.
 
The next hearing will be on November 12.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan who has been spear heading this battle tweeted:

“SC virtually disables the new Dir CBI, Nageshwar Rao appointed by the govt by replacing Verma & restrained him from taking any major or policy decision. All decisions taken by him under scanner. The enquiry by CVC against Verma will be supervised by retd SC judge & done in 2 weeks”

Read about the Controversial Officer hand-picked by the PMO under Narendra Modi to head the CBI here.

The post SC to the Rescue, CVC Report to be Scrutinised: CBI Controversy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Unshackle the CBI from political control: Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the time when Mr Rao joined the CBI in 2015 (during the Modi regime), the agency was headed by Anil Sinha. Objections had been raised about his elevation.  It was Amitabh Singh Dhillon, the head of the agency’s counter-intelligence unit or Special Unit, had then tabled an adverse report on Mr Rao — saying that he should not be inducted on the grounds of corruption charges levelled against him and his alleged proximity to political parties. Inexplicably, for a government that claims the moral high ground on corruption, this assessment was ignored by Mr Sinha as well as the government.

The slew of corruption charges are many and need to be recalled.
 
It was senior advocate Prashant Bhushan who posted some of these allegations on Twitter, but the CBI has simply refused to react. An article on savukkuonline.com titled “ Nageshwar Rao: CBI’s black sheep” was also posted by Bhushan. This article details the many questionable deals, transactions and investigations that Nageshwar Rao is allegedly involved in.
 
Some related to the purchase of State Bank of India land by VGN Developers, a Chennai-based firm. According to the complaint, Mr Rao — who was the then Chennai Zone head — had not hauled up the accused despite the land being sold at a loss to the exchequer. This was one of the reasons for DMK leader MK Stalin criticising his elevation to the post of CBI Director.

This, however, is not the only complaint filed against Mr Rao.

Then, while Mr Rao was serving as a joint director in the CBI earlier in 2018, a file titled “Premature repatriation of Shri Nageswar Rao, IPS” (File no 202/01/2015) was sent to the Cabinet Committee on Security. It suggested that the official must be sent back to Odisha in the light of several complaints, one of which he allegedly closed down in connivance with a senior Delhi official. According to the complaint, Mr Rao had allegedly tried to stall the probe against over 70 Income Tax (I-T) officers listed in arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari’s diaries.

The police had arrested Mr Bhandari along with I-T Joint Commissioner Sallong Yaden in January 2015, and incriminating evidence against several officials was allegedly recovered from his possession. Incidentally, the ruling BJP has accused Mr Bhandari of being close to Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress leader Sonia Gandhi.

Mr Rao is also accused of misrepresenting facts in his own annual tax returns. All his assets filings post-2010 show a Rs. 20-lakh property owned by his wife and her cousin in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The cousin — Dr Ratna Babu — was later revealed to be the brother of his wife, Chinnam Sandhya.

Speaking to Sabrangindia, Prashant Bhushan said, “It is a shame that a man with such a record has been appointed to as Interim Director. He is a goon or goonda in police robes”.

 
Allegations against Nageshwar Rao:
 
1. Nageshwar Rao was appointed in the year 2015- Amitabh Singh Dhillon, the head of the agency’s counter-intelligence unit or Special Unit, had then tabled an adverse report on Mr Rao — saying that he should not be inducted on the grounds of corruption charges levelled against him and his alleged proximity to political parties.
However, the assessment was ignored by the then head of CBI- Anil Sinha and the government. 
 
2. Corruption charges against him-  
 a. Purchase of SBI land by VGN developers (Chennai-based firm)- Mr. Rao (Chennai Zone Head then) did not haul up the accused despite land being sold at a loss to the exchequer. 
Savukku’s article details this fraud as to how SBI sold the land to VGN developers for lesser price and to the disadvantage of the government.
 
The documents of the above fraud were sent to CBI, but it was only after 18 months and continuous follow-up the FIR was registered. However, the CBI failed to conduct any searches in its regard.  “According to highly placed sources in CBI, Nageswara Rao was the one who took the decision not to conduct any searches.”
 
A detailed complaint of the above against Rao was then sent to the CBI Director (Anil Sinha).
 
Abstracts from the complaint:
 “Though the FIR (VGN) was registered on 28.12.2016, Shri.Nageswara Rao, failed to instruct the I.O. to conduct any search operations in connection with the case. Due to this serious lapse, sources say, some serious evidence of bribery by the VGN Developers to various state and central government officials was lost and the said evidence was published in media last week. Instead of allotting this case for investigation to an I.O. of police / investigation background, Shri.Rao, assisgned the investigation of this sensitive case to one Shri.Velayutham, who is a deputee from Indian Bank for reasons best known to him.

However, no investigation whatsoever has been conducted in this regard. Further, as per sources, VGN Developers sent part of the bribe amount of Rs.2 crores intended for the SBI officials through one Ganesh Raj, retired Assistant General Manager of SBI. Rs.80 lakhs of the bribe amount was sent by VGN Developers to HTL account. From the HTL account, the above mentioned Ganesh Raj transferred the amount to his account, later encashed the same and handed over the bribe amounts in cash to A.1 Leon Therattil and A.2 Ramadoss. A simple verification of the bank accounts of Ganesh Raj and HTL would have revealed evidence of bribery. But, Shri.Nageswara Rao, chose not to touch any crucial area of investigation.

Now, according to sources, Shri.Nageswara Rao had instructed the I.O Shri.Velayutham to give a closure report in the above RC and accordingly a report stating that the Bank has not suffered any loss, the amount due is recovered and no further action is required has been given and the same has been approved and sent to Delhi by Shri.Nageswara Rao. Sources also reveal that Shri.Nageswara Rao, is strongly connected with the Telugu officers in Tamil Nadu and is in the habit of passing on several sensitive information to the officers. One such officer who is regularly in touch with Shri.Nageswara Rao, is former Chief Secretary of TN, Shri.Ram Mohana Rao.”
 
Rao, it is alleged. supressed this complaint with the help of KV Chaudhary.  CBI Director, after making due verification tried to repatriate Rao, KV.Chaudry, shot down his proposal, say sources.  
 
b. As CBI Joint Director- “Premature repatriation of Shri Nageswar Rao, IPS” (File no 202/01/2015) was sent to the Cabinet Committee on Security. The file suggested that he be sent back to Odisha in light of several complaints against him. According to it
 
i. He tried to stall the probe against over 70 Income Tax (I-T) officers listed in arms dealer Sanjay Bhandari’s diaries. 
 
ii. Accused of misrepresenting facts in his annual tax returns- All his assets filings post-2010 show a Rs. 20-lakh property owned by his wife and her cousin in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Loans for this purchase were acquired from The firm Angela Mercantiles Private Limited (shell company belonging to the same set of accused). 
 

• Rao’s wife, M Sandhya has also reportedly given a loan of Rs.38,27,141/- to this company, which was outstanding as of 31.03.2013. She has reportedly suppressed her husband’s name from RoC records and has instead used her father’s name – Chinnam Vishnu Narayana in all the records.
• Rao’s wife has invested to the extent of more than 60 lakhs in the company, it is alleged, and obtained 25 lakhs as loan (which could be a case of money-laundering). 
• Rao’s wife- shareholder of the company- in the details of shareholders filed by the company- her address is that of another shell company and not the address of the shareholder. 

  
3. During his tenure in his parent cadre, Odisha, Nageswara Rao had in the year 2011, reportedly purchased a plot of government land, allegedly using forged documents at Khurda, Odisha, from a lady. Due to reasons that remain unclear, the deal fell through and litigation in this regard is pending in 14th Additional Civil Court, Khurda in Civil Suit No. 9211/2015.  
 
4. A detailed source report was sent to CBI Director, Alok Kumar Verma, following which he had ordered a discreet enquiry into allegations on Nageswara Rao. Alarmingly, the discreet enquiry had thrown up enough material to not only create grounds for the repatriation of Nageswara Rao out of CBI, but to also launch prosecution against him, add sources. However, reportedly due to the backing of (CVC) KV Chaudhary, nothing could be done. 
 
5. CBI Director, Alok Verma decided to save the cases, at least, from going down the drain. Alok Verma, ordered the transfer of the investigation of important cases from the Chennai Zone of CBI to the Banking and Securities Fraud Cell (BSFC) of Bengaluru. Nageswara Rao’s jurisdiction did not extend to BSFC and it works under the direct supervision of a separate Joint Director, meant exclusively for BSFC.
 
Today as “Interim Director” Rao has complete control. It is a matter of deep concern that a high level political intervention has resulted in such a quetionable appointment.
 

The post A Peek into CBI Interim Chief, Rao’s ‘Murky Past Record” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Interview with Paranjoy Guha Thakurta
Interviewed by Prabir Purkayastha Produced by Newsclick Team,

Following the recent rift within the CBI between the top two officers of the agency, Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana, a new Interim Director was appointed by the Government. In this discussion, Senior Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Newsclick Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha talk about the various facets of the tussle and the implications of this internal war on the future of India’s premier investigative agency.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

The post Spy vs. Spy: Institutional Collapse of CBI appeared first on SabrangIndia.