11.27 One of the witnesses to be summoned by the DMK Party as per its application dated 22.8.1996 was Shri S. Guhan, former Adviser to Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to whom summons had been issued for 6.9.1996. A letter was received from Shri S Guhan stating that he has recently been treated for a major illness, namely, carcinoma of the trachea and that after completing radiotherapy he was again symptomatic and has been advised rest for one month. The letter was accompanied by a medical certificate dated 27 8 1996. The letter came up for consideration on 30 8 1996. In view of the prayer made by Shri S Guhan, the Commission directed that his statement shall now be recorded on 27 9 1996 and fresh summons be issued to him. Another letter was received from Shri S Guhan seeking change of date on account of his physical condition and family commitment and prayed that any date in the week commencing 7 10 1996 may be fixed. The letter was taken up for consideration on 10 9 1996. The Commission while granting the prayer fixed the next date for recording of his statement on 7 10 1996 and directed that fresh summons be issued to him. Shri Guhan appeared before the Commission on 7 10 1996 and his statement was recorded as DMK/W-1.
4 APPLICATION DATED 9 10 1996
11 28 An application (No 74/96-JCI) dated 9.10.1996 was moved by Shri Rakesh K Sharma, Counsel for the DMK Party for summoning Shri A V Chandrasekar, Deputy Editor of The Hindu', Kasturi Building, Chennai-2 The application was heard on 9.10.1996. The Commission pointed out that according to the application Shri Chandrasekar would simply verify the five news clippings. He was not author of the news. Some staff reporters, whose names have not been specified, have given the news. Without the names of the staff reporters correctness of the news could not be verified. Mere reading of the clippings could be done even by the Commission. So, it was no good summoning Shri A.V. Chandrasekar as he could have no knowledge of the contents of the clippings. The application does not advance the matter any further. Although the name of the Deputy Editor was specified but he is not the author of the news given in the clippings. The Commission therefore declined to summon Shri A.V. Chandrasekar.
EVIDENCE OF SHRI S.B. CHAVAN AND SHRI VARADARAJA PERUMAL From 13.11.l996 TO 16.1.1997
11.29 On 13.11.1996, two applications were filed on behalf of the DMK Party. One application (No.79/96-JCI) (Annexure 65) was for summoning of two witnesses, namely, (1) Shri S.B. Chavan, former Union Home Minister, Government of India and (2) Shri Varadaraja Perumal, former Chief Minister of North East Provincial Council of Sri Lanka at present in India. The second application (No.80/96-JCI) (Annexure 66) was with regard to production of video-tape, reports on video tapes and other records forwarded by Justice Verma Commission of Inquiry to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Copies of these applications had already been delivered to Shri B. Datta, Counsel for the Central Government. Shri B. Datta prayed for time to file the reply by the Central Government. The Commission directed that the reply be filed by 20th November, l996 and that the applications be listed for consideration on 21.11.1996. On 21st November, 1996 when the two applications came up for further consideration the Commission observed that no counter had been filed with regard to the application for summoning of witnesses and that a counter had been filed to the second application for production of video-tapes and other records. The Counsel for the DMS Party prayed that both the applications may be taken up tomorrow i.e. 22.11.1996 which was granted. The application (No.80/96-JCI) dated 13.11.1996 regarding production of video-tape, reports on video-tapes and other records forwarded by Justice Verma Commission to the Ministry of Home Affairs came up for consideration on 22.11.1996. It was adjourned to 23.11.1996 as prayed by the Counsel for the DMK Party. On 23.11.1996, Shri N. Natarajan, Counsel for the DMK Party submitted that time may be allowed to him to substantiate some of the allegations made by the DMK Party in its application dated 13.11.1996. The Commission granted two weeks' time as prayed .
11.30 As regards the application (No.79/96-JCI1 dated 13.11.1996 for summoning Shri S.B. Chavan and Shri Varadaraj Perumal, the Commission observed that the postal address of Shri Perumal had not been mentioned in the application for which notice was given to the Counsel for the Central Government who stated that Shri Varadaraja Perumal was not under the protection of the Central Government, that his whereabouts were not known to the Central Government and that the Central Government was not in a position to produce him before the Commission. The Commission thereupon ordered that if the DMK Party wanted to produce him, his whereabouts may be found out and his correct postal address be supplied to the Commission so that summons could be issued to him at that address if he is available in India. The Commission further directed that so far as Shri S.B. Chavan is concerned, summons be issued to him for 28th November, 1996 at l1.O0 A.M.
EVIDENCE OF SHRI S.B. CHAVAN, FORMFR UNION HOME MINISTER
11.31 Shri S.B. Chavan, former Union Home Minister appeared before the Commission on 28.11.1996, but his statement remained incomplete. Shri Chavan stated that he will have to go through the records of the Home Ministry and without that it would not be possible for him to give correct information to the Commission through his statement. The Commission then directed that Shri B. Datta Counsel for the Central Government shall make the necessary, records available to the witness within ten days and shall produce that record which is seen by the witness before the Commission on the day the deposition of the witness is resumed. For further recording of Shri Chavan's statement, 14th December, 1996 at 10.30 A.M. was fixed.
11.32 On 12.12.1996 Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Shri S.B. Chavan prayed for time for the deposition of Shri S.B. and also moved an application to that effect. The Commission observed that the Central Government was directed to make the necessary records available to Shri Chavan so that he may go through the records and may be in a position to give his statement. Shri B. Datta submitted that some of the records were made available and records of-RAW, I.B. and Ministry of External Affairs were being collected and thereafter would be made available to the witness. He however pointed out that Shri Chavan could not even look into the documents which were made available to him and that he could only look into the records/documents after the Parliament Session was over. The Commission further observed that Shri Chavan has prayed for four weeks' time but the inquiry is already very much delayed and that although sufficient time was allowed still looking to the importance of his statement and the document to which reference may be made by him in his statement it would be proper to allow him time upto 1st January, 1997. The Commission then directed that all necessary records may be made available to Shri Chavan after interacting with him for his perusal and that his statement shall now be recorded on 2.1.1997 and shall continue till it was over.
11.33 Shri S.B. Chavan appeared before the Commission on 2.1.1997 but his evidence remained incomplete. His further statement was fixed for 15.1.1997 at 2.00 P.M. Shri S.B. Chavan appeared on 15.1.1997 and his statement was recorded as DMK/W-3.
Evidence of Shri Vardaraja Perumal
11.34 On the question of summoning of Shri Vardaraja Perumal, former Chief Minister of the North Eastern Provincial Council, Sri Lanka, the DMK Party filed another application (No.81/97-JCI) dated nil (Annexure 67) on 30.12.1996. The application came up for consideration on 2.1.1997. Shri B. Datta, Counsel for the Central Government submitted that he would seek instructions and filed a reply to the application and prayed for 10 days time. The Commission while allowing the time directed that a reply to the application be filed within 10 days, that the application be put up for hearing on l5.1.1997 at 2.00 P.M. and that a copy of the reply be given in advance to the Counsel for the DMK Party, the applicant.
11.35 The application No.81/97-JCI) came up for further consideration on 15.1.1997. The Commission noticed that no reply to the application had been filed by the Central Government and that Shri B. Datta had left: because of his indisposition. The Commission directed that the matter be put up tomorrow i.e. on 16th January, 1997 at 2.00 P.M. The Commission while disposing of the application passed the following Order on 16.1.1997:
On 30.12.1996, a further application has been moved on behalf of the DMK Party to summon Shri Varadaraja Perumal, former Chief Minister of North Eastern Provincial Council, Sri Lanka. A copy of the application was given to Shri B. Datta, Counsel for the Central Government and the Central Government was directed to file reply to the application within ten days. No written reply to the application has been filed and Shri. B. Datta stated that he has received a fax message giving him instructions in connection with the application. The stand which the Government took through Shri B. Datta, as informed to him in the meeting of Secretaries on 22.11.1996, was that Shri Varadaraja Perumal was not under the protection of the Central Government and his whereabouts were not known to the Central Government. So the Central Government is not in a position to produce him before the Commission. Now Shri B. Datta has been instructed through fax message that Shri Varadaraja Perumal is not under the protection of the C.R.P.F. or the Police and is not in India. In view of the stand taken by the Central Government, the Central Government is not in a position to produce him before the Commission. The DMK Party may verify and if it wants to produce Shri V. Perumal as a witness, then his present complete address may be furnished to the Commission: so that the Commission may be in a position to issue summons to him. This may be done within ten days. This disposes the application dated 30.12.1996 filed by the DMK Party.
Evidence of Shri M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 24.9.1996 to 21.2.1997.
11.36 On 24.9.1996 the Commission took up the question of examination of Shri M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. On submissions being made by the Counsel for the DMK Party that any date after 7.10.1996 may be fixed, the Commission directed that the examination of Shri M. Karunanidhi shall take place on 11th October, 1996 at 2.00 P.M. and that Shri Karunanidhi shall appear on that date. On 4.10.1996, an application (No.76/96-JCI) was moved by the Counsel for the DMK Party stating that it would not be possible for Shri M. Karunanidhi to appear before the Commission on 11.10.1996 and that any date in the first week of November, 1996 may be fixed for his statement. He made the prayer on the instructions of Shri M. Karunanidhi. The Commission for the reason stated in the application deferred the statement of Shri M. Karunanidhi to 1.11.1996.
11.37 Another application (No.77/96-JCI) (Annexure 68) was moved by the Counsel for the DMX Party on 29.10.1996 praying for postponing the recording of the statement of Shri M. Karunanidhi fixed for 1st November, 1996.The Commission observed that the date was fixed according to Shri Karunanidhi's convenience after adjournment, that he should have adjusted his schedule accordingly, that his statement will be recorded as scheduled i.e. on 1.11.1996 and that if Shri Karunanidhi is busy otherwise he may seek cancellation of his programme. The Commission further observed that if he wants to avail of the opportunity to appear before the Commission and explain whatever has appeared against him he may avail the opportunity and if he does not want to examine himself, he should make his stand clear. Thereupon, the Counsel for the DMK Party prayed that the matter may be taken up the following day, i.e. the 30th October, 1996 so that he could seek instructions. Consideration of the application was therefore adjourned to 30.10.1996. On 30th October, 1996 Shri N. Natarajan, Counsel for the DMK Party further pressed the application presented the previous day for change of date but the Commission pointed out that the date was fixed as given by Shri M. Karunanidhi and so Shri Karunanidhi should appear on the appointed date, that is, lst November, 1996. The Counsel submitted that he would convey what has been expressed by the Commission to Shri Karunanidhi and would be back tomorrow. The Commission thereupon directed that the matter be put up again on 31.10.1996.
11.38 On 31.10.1996, a fresh request was made for the change of date by the Counsel for Shri .M. Karunanidhi stating that Shri Karunanidhi was suffering from viral fever and that he has cancelled all his programmes on account of his ill health. A medical certificate along with the press clippings was produced in support of the request. He submitted that Shri Karunanidlhi was unable to attend the hearing tomorrow and so it would not be possible to record his statement on 1.11.1996 and that any date in the week commencing 11th November, 1996 may be fixed. The Commission while observing that it would be proper to fix 12th November, 1996 after the Diwali festival directed that the statement of Shri Karunanidhi shall be recorded on 12.11.1996 and shall continue till it was over.
11.39 Yet another application was moved on behalf of Shri M Karunanidhi on 8.11.1996 stating that due to illness it would not be possible for him to appear before the Commission on 12.11.1996 and that all his engagements had been cancelled till 16th of November, 1996. It was further stated that it would be possible for Shri Karunanidhi to appear before the Commission on 22nd or 23rd of November, 1996. For the reasons stated in the application, the Commission deferred the statement of Shri Karunanidhi and directed that it shall now be recorded 011 22.11.1996 and may even continue on 23rd November, 1996.
11.40 Shri M. Karunanidhi appeared before the Commission on 22.11.1996 for his evidence but his statement remained incomplete. His statement was continued on 23.11.1996 but it still remained incomplete. The Commission directed that further statement of Shri Karunanidhi shall now be recorded on 17.12.1996. But on 16.12.1996, an application dated 13.12.1996 filed on behalf of Shri M. Karunanidhi came up for consideration. It was stated in the application that Shri Karunanidhi would not be able to appear before the Commission on 17.12.1996 due to cyclonic storm and heavy rains in Tamil Nadu whereby large areas have been submerged into water and extensive rescue operations have been undertaken by the Government of Tamil Nadu and that the presence of Shri Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu was indispensable under the situation. The Commission thereupon asked the Counsels appearing for Shri. Karunanidhi to find out whether it would be possible for him to appear for a day and also to find out any convenient date within two weeks. The Counsels after seeking instructions submitted that Shri Karunanidhi would be conveniently appearing before the Commission on 17.1.1997 and before that it would not be possible for him to appear because for having an assessment of the damages and seeking financial aid from the Centre he would be having continuous Cabinet meetings. The Commission pointed out that it had asked for an earlier date in view of the term of the Commission. Keeping in view the importance of the statement of Shri Karunanidhi, the Commission thought it proper to allow him
to appear on 17.1.1997 as prayed by him. It was accordingly directed that the further statement of Shri M. Karunanidhi shall be recorded on 17.1.1997 and that his statement hall be recorded continuously till it was over. It was hoped that no further adjournment would be sought. The Commission further directed that all the parties appearing before the Commission, including the press, be informed and also cancelled its sitting fixed for 17.12.1996.
11.41 Shri M. Karunanidhi appeared before the Commission for his further evidence on 17.1.1997 but his statement remained incomplete. Since the witness expressed his inability to suggest any dates within two weeks but submitted that he would suggest two days within two weeks by the 22nd January 1997, the Commission directed that the next date for his examination shall be fixed accordingly.
11.42 The Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu vide his Fax message dated 29.1.1997 informed the Commission that 21st and 22nd February would be suitable to Shri M. Karunanidhi for his further examination. He also stated in the Fax that the two consecutive dates were given as the Chief Minister would be available for two consecutive days to complete his further statement and requested for confirmation. 2nst and 22nd of February, 1997 were fixed for recording the statement of Shri Mw Karunanidhi and the parties were informed.
11.43 Shri M. Karunanidhi appeared before the Commission on 21.2.1997 and his statement was completed as DMK/W-2.
EVIDENCE OF SHRI S.I. .JAFFAR ALI.
11.44 On behalf of DMK Party an application (No.88/97 JCI) dated 21.2.1997 (Annexure 69) was moved on 21st February, 1997 to summon Shri S.I. Jaffar Ali, DIG (Intelligence), since retired. The Commission directed that Shri Jaffir Ali be summoned through the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu for 6th March, 1997 at 11.00 A.M.
11.45 On 26th February, 1997 an application was moved on behalf of Shri Jaffar Ali by the DMK Party stating that it would not be possible for Shri Jaffar Ali to appear on 6.3.1997. For the reasons stated in the application, the statement of Shri Jaffar Ali was deferred and fixed for 10th March, 1997 at 1l.00 A.M. Fresh summons were directed to be issued to him for the changed date.
11.46 Shri Jaffar Ali appeared before the Commission on 10th March, 1997 and his statement was recorded as DMK/W-4.
11.47 On March 10, 1997, the Counsel for the DMK Party presented two applications. One application (No.90/97-JCI) dated 10C3.1997 (annexure 70) was for getting the evidence of a hand-writing expert in. connection with Exhibit Nos.552 and 553 and the other (No.91/97-JCI) dated 10.3.1997 (Annexure 71) was for summoning Shri N. Ravi, Editor of The Hindu. It was directed that the application be listed for hearing on 12.3.1997 at 11.00 A.M. and that the Counsel for the DMK Party shall deliver copies of the applications to the other counsels. The applications came up for hearing on 12th March, li97. Both the applications were disposed of by the Commission by its Order dated 12.3.1997 as under:
Application No. 90/97-JCI: This application has been moved on behalf of the DMK Party for calling for the sample documents from the Government of Tamil Nadu containing the hand writing and signatures of Mr . R . Nagarajan, former Home secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and thereafter to send exhibits 552 and 553 along with the sample documents to some handwriting and document expert to verify the genuineness of both the documents. The two documents were produced before the commission on 22.11.1996 when Dr. M. Karunanidhi was first examined and it has come in his evidence that about these documents he had informed his Counsel although the documents were not produced or given to the press earlier. The documents have not been confronted to Shri P. Nagarajan who was examined by the Commission on 3.6.1996, 16.9.1996 and 17.9.1996. Even Ms. J. Jayalalitha was examined on 19.11.1996, three days earlier to the statement of Dr. M. Karunanidhi. After taking over as Chief Minister on 13.5.1996, the documents came to his notice within about 2-3 months, as deposed by him. These documents ought to have been confronted to both the witnesses to whom they relate. Although Dr. Karunanidhi stated in his deposition that the Commission can send the documents to the expert to examine their genuineness but this course of action was to be adopted by the DMK party itself as to whether any proof is required for the two documents. The application is highly belated. This course of action should have been decided when the documents were decided to be produced before the Commission. What further course of action would be proper is for the DMK party to decide. The application is therefore disposed of with the above observations.
Application No. 9l/97-JCI : The DMK party had moved an application No.79/96-JCI on l3.11.1996 for summoning Shri Varadaraja Perumal, former Chief Minister of North East Provincial Council of Sri Lanka. It was stated in the application that Shri Varadaraja Perumal is in the care and protection of the Central Government and the whereabouts of Shri Perumal are known to the Central government The Central Government, through its Counsel Shri B. Datta. was directed to produce Shri Perumal on the appointed date. On the appointed date the Central Government represented that Shri Varadaraja Perumal is not under the protection of the Central Government and his whereabouts are not known to the Central Government. In view of the said representation, the Counsel for the DMK party was directed to submit the postal address of; Shri Varadaraja Perumal so that summons could be issued to him. On 16.1.1997, the Central Government submitted that Shri Perumal is not under the protection of the Central Government and further that he is not in India. This application (No.91/97-JCI) has now been moved to summon Mr. N. Ravi Editor of The Hindu. Along with the application, two clippings of The Hindu have been filed, one dated 25.12.1996 and the other dated 30.12.1996. The datelines of the press reports are: Jaipur, December 24, l996, and Colombo, December 29, 1996. In these reports it appeared that Shri Varadaraja Perumal is living somewhere in some district in Rajasthan. It appears that Mr. N. Ravi is being sought to be summoned to find out the whereabouts and the, postal address of Shri Varadaraja Perumal. It was for the DMK Party to make an inquiry from the Editor of The Hindu or from the Special
Correspondent of The Hindu who is the author of the news which has appeared in The Hindu dated 25.12.1996. It appears that no such inquiry has been made. The DMK party ought to have given the postal address of Shri Perumal to the Commission so that summons could have been issued. It is not proper that a witness is being summoned to find out the whereabouts of some other witness. if the witness would have refused to supply this information which may be with him, in that situation such a course of action could have been adopted. But no such effort appears to have been made to find out the whereabouts either from Mr. N. Ravi or from the Special Correspondent of The Hindu. A clear Direction was given to the DMK party to submit the postal address so that effective steps for summoning the witness Shri Varadaraja Perumal could be taken by the Commission. In this situation, whatever proper course of action the DMK party wants to adopt, the case may be adopted by it but the Commission does not think it proper to summon Shri N. Ravi the way he is required to be summoned through this application. This application is also therefore disposed of with the above observations
11.48 Shri Rakesh K. Sharma, Counsel for the DMS Party addressed his arguments on 11.6.1997. Shri N. Natarajan, counsel for Shri M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu addressed his arguments on 11.6.1997.
11.49 Shri Rakesh R. Sharma filed the written arguments on behalf of DMK Party on 18.6.1997.
8. INDIVIDUALS
1 Evidence and application by Shri Jile Singh Chauhan from 29.6.1995 TO 27.10.1995
and 26.5.1997 .
11.50 Shri Jile Singh Chauhan, Advocate filed an affidavit dated 29.6.1995 making certain allegations against Shri Chandraswami based on the write-ups which appeared in the Blitz dated 15.8.1987, 18.5.199l, 1.6.l991 and 15.6.1991 (Ex. Nos.l3l, 250, 251 and 252) annexed to the affidavit. The affidavit came up for consideration before the commission on 17.7.1995 when it passed the following order:
Heard Shri Jile Singh Chauhan, Advocate, as well as his, Counsel Shri SK Duggal, and perused the affidavit along with the annexures. His allegations against Shri Chandraswami in the affidavit are based on annexures. Let this affidavit be circulated. Shri Chandraswami will file his reply affidavit within three weeks, as prayed by his Counsel Shri Ashok Arora, already representing him. Shri Jile Singh Chauhan is also directed to produce the names and addresses of the witnesses in order to substantiate the allegations made in the affidavit. This may be done within three weeks";
11.51 In compliance, Shri Chauhan submitted .an application (No.41/95-JCT) dated 5.8.1995 (Annexure 72} praying that Shri Chandraswami, Shri S.B. Chavan, Union Minister of Home Affairs Shri R.K Karanjia, Editor-in-Chief, Blitz, Bombay and Shri A. Raghavan, Blitz Special Correspond at New Delhi may be summoned. The application came up for consideration on 7.9.1995 whereupon the Commission passed the following Order:
Shri Jile Singh Chauhan, Advocate has filed an affidavit dated 29.6.1995 before this Commission, making certain allegations against Shri Chandraswami. He has annexed copies of Blitz dated 15.8.1987, 18 5 1991, 1.6.1991 and 15.6.l991. Some portions of these articles appearing in the Blitz have been quoted in the affidavit. When this affidavit was taken on record, a direction was given to the deponent as to how he would like to substantiate the allegations made in the affidavit and the names of the witnesses with their addresses may be filed . Shri Ashok Arora, Advocate, who had already filed his power on behalf of Shri Chandraswami, was given a copy of the affidavit filed by Shri Jile Singh Chauhan and Shri Chandraswami was asked to file his affidavit. Thereupon, Shri Chandraswami filed his affidavit on 25.8.1995, and on 5.8.1995 the deponent, Shri Jile Singh Chauhan submitted an application making a prayer that Shri Chandraswami, Shri S.B. Chavan, Shri R,K. Karanjia and Shri A Raghavan may be summoned and along
with this application dated 5.8.1995, a copy of the Blitz of the same date was also filed.
The question that has arisen before me is whether the witnesses sought to be summoned by the deponent Shri Zile Singh Chauhan should be summoned or not.
I have heard Shri S.K. Duggal, learned Counsel for the deponent Shri Zile Singh Chauhan, and the learned Counsel for the Central Government Shri B. Datta, learned Counsel for the AICC(I) Shri R.K. Mittal and the learned Counsel for Shri Chandraswami Shri Ashok Arora.
On behalf of the deponent, it is urged that.the contents of the annexures filed along with the affidavit show Shri Chandraswami 's involvement in the disappearance of Shri Rajiv Gandhi from the political scene. His connections with Shri A Khashoggi have also been referred to and he is said to be his financier. Whatever has been said in respect of Shri Chandraswami in these articles would be substantiated if Shri R.K. Karanjia and the writers of other columns who are from the Delhi Bureau are called by the Commission.
Shri R.N. Mittal, learned Counsel for the AICC(I), pointed out that besides what is contained in the articles submitted by the deponent, there are other circumstances appearing in the evidence of Shri Mahant Sewa Dass Singh, Shri Swatantra Sheel, Shri Ashwani Chopra, Shri Ratnakar Pandey and Shri KK Tewary . The facts which have appeared in their statements need to be probed and with regarding the particular facts
it is necessary to question Shri Chandrarwami and all relevent. questions have to be put to him with reference to the material which has come before the Commission through the govermental agencies or otherwise
Shri B Datta learned Counsel for the Central Government, submitted that: the Commission has enough powers under Section 5(2) of the Commission of Inquiry Act; to elicit information from any person on points and matters connected with the inquiry and if the Commission thinks it necessary all such persons can be summoned .
Shri. Ashok Arora on the other hand, opposed the application of the deponent and submiitted that the write-ups in the Blitz only make out a case of Rajiv Gandhi's ouster politically and nothing is there in these articles regarding his physical elimination, and he also referred to the statements on which reliance has been placed by Shri R.N. Mittal that the statements do not at all make out any conspiracy by Shri Chandraswami for elimination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi.
I need not consider the various, contentions advanced before me by the learned counsels for the parties on merit at this stage. Looking to the nature of the probe which this Commission is required to make, and having regard to the material which has so far come before the Commission, either in the form of articles or in the form of oral testimony or otherwise, I consider it necessary to examine Shri Chandraswami, Shri R.K .Karanjia and Shri A. Raghavan and also Shri Sanjay Kapoor who is the author of the write-up appearing in the Blitz dated 5.8.1995. Although his address is not given but from the Delhi Bureau of Blitz, Shri Sanjay Kapoor's address can be known.
A prayer has also been made for summoning Shri SB. Chavan,Union Home Minister, but nothing has been appointed out by the deponent 's Counsel as to why he needs to be summoned. The averment in the affidavit is that Shri Chavan can throw light on the investigations which have been made in respect of the contents of the articles which have been filed. On the basis of the affidavit filed by Shri Jile Singh Chauhan, it is not necessary to summon Shri S.B. Chavan at present. The application of the deponent is therefore, allowed as above.
Shri R K Karanjia is reported to be hospitlaised in Breach Candy Hospital, Bombay on
account of his brain hemorrhage, as reported in the newspapers, For the present, his examination is deferred and summons would only be issued to him after his recovery. Shri A. Raghavan, Shri Sanjay Kapoor and Shri Chandraswami be summoned for 23rd September, 1995 at 11.00 A.M. "
11-52 Shri Jile Singh Chauhan, Advocate filed another application (No.46/95-JCI) dated 16.9.1995 which was considered by the Commission on 19.9.1995 and the following order was passed:
Shri Jile Singh Chauhan, Advocate, has moved an application under Sections 10(3), clause (h) of the Passports Act, 1967. It is prayed that the passport authorities may be informed that Shri Chandraswami has been summoned/served with summons to appear before this Commission on 23.9.1995. His passport and travel documents are required to be impounded till the time his statement is recorded by this Commission and the passport authorities may further be directed to ensure that Shri Chandraswami does not flee from the country before his examination is completely recorded by this commission.
I have heard Shri S.K. Duggal, applicant's Counsel and the applicant himself and Shri B.Datta, learned Counsel for the Central Government, Shri (G.L. Sanghi, Commission 's Counsel, Shri Ashok Arora, Counse1 for Shri Chandraswami, Dr. B.L. Wadehra and Shri U.L. Watwani, Counsel for the AICC (I).
It may be stated that summons have already been issued by this Commission for recording the statelent of Shri Chandraswami on 23.9.l995 and the summons have been served on him. Till date after service of summons, no applitcation for adjournment has so far been made by him. So, it can be taken that Shri Chandraswami would appear before the Commission on 23.9.1995 as required by the summons. The averments made in the application that the applicant has come to know from the reliable source that Shri Chandraswami may flee from the country and in view of his past conduct and criminal activities, it may be impossible to examine him by this Commission as a witness. This averment is not supported by any affidavit nor the source has at all been disclosed on the basis of which it can be said that he may flee from the country.
Undoubtedly, Shri Chandraswami is an important and material witness before this Commission. The Commission has all the powers for ensuring attendance of a witness unclear section 4 of this Commissions of Inquiry Act. After service of summons in case Shri Chandraswami does not appear, law will take its own course. It is obligatory and imperative for him to appear on 23.9.1995 in compliance of the summons served on him.
A question may arise whether and such power can be exercised by the Commission as prayed for by the applicant under clause (h) of sub-section 3 of Section 10 or under clause (c) of sub-sect:ion 3 of Section 10, as argued by Shri B. Datta, learned Counsel for the Central Government. Both the clauses empower the passport authority to impound or cause to be impounded or revoke the passport and travel documents. The power of impounding or revoking the travel documents can even be exercised by the passport authority if it is brought to its notice that summons for appearance have been issued by a court under law for the time being in force. As hinted above, the Commission has got the powers of a civil court as conferred by section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
I do not think it proper that the Commission should inform the passport authorities with regard to issuance of summons by the Commisslon. If the passport authorities feel that clauses (C) or (h) of sectin 3 of section l0 are at all attracted, it is only that authority which can exercise the power under that provision.
As regards the passport held by Shri Chandraswami, I think it is essential that the passport should be before the Commission at the time of his examination. I, therefore, direct Shri Ashok Arora, Counsel for Shri Chandraswami, that Shri Chandraswami shall appear for his examination along with his passport with entries from 1989 onwards, on the appointed date. The application is disposed of with the above observations. "
11.53 Pursuant to the summons, Shri A. Raghavan and Shri Sanjoy Kapoor appeared before the Commission on 23rd September, l995 and their statements were recorded as JSC/W-1 and JSC/W-2 respectively.
Index
India Today News
Today
Related Stories
Feedback
To advertise on the Jain Commission pages, mail us