New Delhi, January 16
Taking cognizance of a petition highlighting government’s communication to the Crown Prosecution Service in London that it had no objection to the “defreezing” two bank accounts of Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi, an accused in the Rs 64 crore Bofors pay-off case, the Supreme Court today directed the Centre and the CBI to freeze them immediately to ensure that no money was withdrawn by him.
While issuing notices to the Union Government and the CBI Director, a Bench of Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Mr Justice C.K. Thakker and Mr Justice R.V. Raveendran directed them to submit their replies by January 23 on the issue.
“Till further order, we direct the government and the CBI to maintain the status quo with regard to the accounts in question so that defreezing does not take place. And if it has already been defrozen, the amount is not withdrawn from it,” the Bench said.
The
Bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the
Centre, that “the fact of the matter is that the accounts stand frozen for the past two years... It will be in the interest of Union Government and the CBI that the accounts remain where it is
for the last two years.”
Listing the writ petition of advocate Ajay Agrawal on the issue for further hearing on January 23, the Bench said it would need the assistance of the ASG to hear the matter and his stand on the issue.
Agrawal said the latest media reports from London stated that the two bank accounts in which Rs 26 crore was deposited by Quatorocchi and allegedly linked to the Bofors pay-off by the CBI, had already been “defrozen” by British authorities on January 11.
When the court sought the view of Subramaniam on the ticklish issue, he said “my duty as law officer is to state to the court that the rule of the law has to be upheld.”
The court asked when the case pertaining to Quatorocchi was pending before a trial judge, what was the necessity for communicating to the CPS about the defreezing of the accounts and at “whose instance it has been done”.
The Bench pointed out that if the government and the CBI wanted to allow the defreezaing to go on, the proper course for them was to move the trial court for withdrawal of the case if it so desired, and sought its permission for the same.
But at the same time, the court was not happy the manner in which Agrawal had gone to the media prior to hearing of his petition and procedure adopted by it in informing the government and the CBI about his petition being listed for hearing by it.
It cautioned him against “politicising the matter and playing to the gallery.”
The court also directed to delete the names of Law Minister H.R. Bharadwaj and Additional Solicitor General B. Dutta from the list of respondents in the petition.
Agrawal had named them as parties in the petition, alleging that Dutta, as per media reports emanating from London, had gone there without the clearance of the CBI and the Law Minister had defended his decision while making a statement to the media that “there is no evidence” against Quatorocchi in the Bofors case.
