Kesri's son has wealth disproportionate to known source of income: CBI
The Central Bureau of Investigation on Monday told the Delhi high court that
Amarnath Kesri, Congress president Sitaram Kesri's son, has
amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income,
though there was nothing to establish that he got the money from
his father.
Additional Solicitor General Altaf Ahmed told Justices Jaspal Singh and Manmohan
Sarin that the CBI had found no truth in the allegations that Sitaram Kesri had amassed wealth through illegal means or that he had bribed legislators during his election to the Rajya Sabha.
The judges, hearing a public interest petition field by Patna-based
journalist Madhuresh Kumar, observed that the CBI should pointedly
ask Amarnath Kesri where he got the money from and, if he
had no business of his own, from what source the money came from.
The CBI claimed its investigation -- which included the interrogation of 12 of the 22 MLAs who were named by Kumar in his complaint -- revealed nothing that proved that Sitaram Kesri was involved in the case.
Reacting to the CBI contention that it had interrogated Amarnath Kesri
twice, the court observed, ''Earlier your interrogations were based
on a different angle -- to find out Kesri's involvement.
"We are disturbed to know that Amarnath Kesri has acquired wealth disproportionate to known sources of income. The wealth, in our view, has been acquired either illegally or has come through some other source which needs to be investigated. But unless and until the petitioner comes up with some concrete line of action, what can the court do in the matter?'' the judges said.
Prashant Bhushan, the petitioner's counsel, said the CBI should interrogate Amarnath Kesri, his wife, people in his household and immediate neighbours, as they must be in the know of the things which have been going on for many years.
He alleged that the CBI inquiry into the case was an eyewash
and the agency was not genuine in its attempts. The way the investigation
was going on, nothing is going to come out of it, the counsel
alleged.
The petitioner's counsel stated that if Kumar had seen Sitaram Kesri handing over money to the MLAs, the family members, close relatives or neighbours must be knowing this fact.
Bhushan said the CBI should also obtain the income tax department's inquiry report which
states that Sitaram Kesri and his relatives have acquired wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income.
The CBI should also probe the bank accounts of the
MLAs who allegedly received the illegal gratification
from Sitaram Kesri, he said.
Bhushan contended that even an evaluation of Sitaram Kesri's immovable property would prove that he has assets disproportionate to his income.
He alleged that the CBI investigation has many loopholes as it has not inquired into various assets acquired by Sitaram Kesri -- like two houses, three plots of land and a house
under construction.
Bhushan said the court should appoint some retired CBI officer to probe the matter.
However, the court turned down his request, saying
that the agency was doing its job and any such step will reflect
on the CBI's reputation.
P>
"We are not concerned with X, Y, Z, but whether the money acquired by Amarnath Kesri has flown from Sitaram Kesri,'' the judges said.
Bhushan said the CBI should also inquire whether Amarnath Kesri was running some drug business. He said circumstantial evidence like withdrawal of
support by the Congress to the United Front at a time when the CBI
was going strong on the case, and the CBI's subsequent ''backward'' movement
in the case amply prove that the agency was trying to
protect the Congress president.
Reacting to this, the agency denied it was trying to hush up the case to exonerate Kesri.
The agency filed an affidavit in the court that necessary inquiries have been made and that conclusions have been drawn based on the facts that emerged during the course of the investigation.
It said the petitioner had picked up notes from different officers and stitched them together to project a totally distorted version, casting aspersions on the CBI's credibility.
CBI counsel Ahmed said the MLAs, who allegedly
received bribes from Kesri in 1992, have been interrogated and
nothing was found from them to substantiate the allegations.
One of them could not be interrogated as he was dead.
Regarding the nine MLAs who had allegedly received
money in 1988, Ahmed said they could not be examined because
they did not come under the purview of the Prevention
of Corruption Act.
He said the judges could not revoke its March 4 judgment in which it had expressed satisfaction over the progress of the CBI investigation in the case and had said that there was no further need for any monitoring of the matter.
The judges took strong exception to this contention,
saying that if the court found that the CBI was proceeding in
a wrong direction, it had all the powers to intervene
in the matter and monitor the investigation.
To the CBI contention that Sitaram Kesri was running his
household on just Rs 1,000 a month, the court asked Ahmed,
"On what basis have you said that a man can run his household
in merely Rs 1000?"
Kesri's counsel G L Sanghi refuted the petitioner's contention,
saying, "My client has been staying single
for so many years and managing the household in just Rs 1000."
UNI
|
