New Delhi, January 13, 2006:- The Bharatiya Janata Party had yesterday raised two questions before the Nation. The first question was–whether the Central Bureau of Investigation was also of the opinion that there is no case for prosecution made out against Mr. Ottavio Quottorocchi. The second question was that the Ministry of Law has no jurisdiction to determine the guilt or innocence of Ottavio Quottorocchi, the extraordinary step of informing the Crown Prosecution through the Additional Solicitor General that there is no material or evidence that the CBI had against Quottorocchi, was an uncalled for concession. The Party had, therefore, questioned whether the Prime Minister of India was in the knowledge of and privy to this decision. Unfortunately, neither the political executive of the Government of India nor the Congress Party has responded to these two questions. They wish to take this debate on issues of irrelevance.
Disclosures made in ‘THE INDIAN EXPRESS’ today have now thrown up a very vital issue. It appears that the CBI was of the categorical opinion that there is sufficient material to prosecute Mr. Ottavio Quottorocchi and that there was further material to link these two accounts to the Bofors pay-backs. The CBI was opposed to this help being given to Quottorocchi and was opposed to any such concession being made. The CBI wanted its official to accompany the law officer and even this request was not acceded to. The position in law thus is very clear. It is the CBI and the CBI, alone which is responsible for prosecuting the case. In case the CBI is of the opinion that no case is made out, it is only the prosecutor upon being satisfied, move an application seeking permission of the Judge to withdraw the case. The Court will review the facts on record and then pronounce on whether the prosecutor can be given permission or not. The political executive of the Government of India has absolutely no role to play in this matter. The relationship of Mr. Quottorocchi with the Chairperson of the UPA, if at all, is a ground for suspicion and certainly not a ground for discharge. Now that it is clear that the CBI was of the opinion that a case for prosecution is made out and had sufficient material existed on record against Quottorocchi, how did the Law Minister, the Additional Solicitor General or any other functionary of the Government of India including the Prime Minister (if at all) reach a conclusion that they were authorized to make this collusive concession in favour of Quottorocchi. This is dereliction of duty. It is collusion with the accused. It is failure to protect the law in India. It is a blatant attempt to help an accused merely because of his powerful connections. This unusual step has been taken to help Mr. Quottorocchi merely because of his proximity to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and the Gandhi family. Is INDIAN LAW going to be different for an ITALIAN accused?
For having defied the law and for having interfered with in its due process, the Law Minister has not merely shown his ignorance of law but chosen to indulge in its flagrant violation. He deserves to be dismissed forthwith. The Bharatiya Janata Party demands his dismissal.
But what about the Prime Minister of India? His proclamations that “the Government will function at zero level of tolerance on corruption” have proved to be false. His assertions about the probity and transparency in public life have been established to be hypocritical. His credentials of being a decent man are increasingly becoming a suspect. He championed the cause of tainted ministers in the Cabinet. He gave clean chits to the tainted in the Volcker controversy. Today his Government is in collusion with the accused that have cheated country. Would he still come clean on his own role in the matter?
Disclosures made in ‘THE INDIAN EXPRESS’ today have now thrown up a very vital issue. It appears that the CBI was of the categorical opinion that there is sufficient material to prosecute Mr. Ottavio Quottorocchi and that there was further material to link these two accounts to the Bofors pay-backs. The CBI was opposed to this help being given to Quottorocchi and was opposed to any such concession being made. The CBI wanted its official to accompany the law officer and even this request was not acceded to. The position in law thus is very clear. It is the CBI and the CBI, alone which is responsible for prosecuting the case. In case the CBI is of the opinion that no case is made out, it is only the prosecutor upon being satisfied, move an application seeking permission of the Judge to withdraw the case. The Court will review the facts on record and then pronounce on whether the prosecutor can be given permission or not. The political executive of the Government of India has absolutely no role to play in this matter. The relationship of Mr. Quottorocchi with the Chairperson of the UPA, if at all, is a ground for suspicion and certainly not a ground for discharge. Now that it is clear that the CBI was of the opinion that a case for prosecution is made out and had sufficient material existed on record against Quottorocchi, how did the Law Minister, the Additional Solicitor General or any other functionary of the Government of India including the Prime Minister (if at all) reach a conclusion that they were authorized to make this collusive concession in favour of Quottorocchi. This is dereliction of duty. It is collusion with the accused. It is failure to protect the law in India. It is a blatant attempt to help an accused merely because of his powerful connections. This unusual step has been taken to help Mr. Quottorocchi merely because of his proximity to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and the Gandhi family. Is INDIAN LAW going to be different for an ITALIAN accused?
For having defied the law and for having interfered with in its due process, the Law Minister has not merely shown his ignorance of law but chosen to indulge in its flagrant violation. He deserves to be dismissed forthwith. The Bharatiya Janata Party demands his dismissal.
But what about the Prime Minister of India? His proclamations that “the Government will function at zero level of tolerance on corruption” have proved to be false. His assertions about the probity and transparency in public life have been established to be hypocritical. His credentials of being a decent man are increasingly becoming a suspect. He championed the cause of tainted ministers in the Cabinet. He gave clean chits to the tainted in the Volcker controversy. Today his Government is in collusion with the accused that have cheated country. Would he still come clean on his own role in the matter?
(Shyam Jaju)
Office Secretary
Office Secretary
To Write Comment Please लॉगिन
.gif)
