The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s noose tightens around Karti’s neck. The agency on Friday informed the Supreme Court the issuance of lookout circular (LOC) against Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union Minister P Chidambaram, in the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) kickback case saying there were “good, cogent” reasons to back its step. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta told the Court that there was “a good, cogent reason for issuance of lookout circular against him (Karti). It is not a simple case or that of one company but it involves jugglery of accounts and properties abroad”.
During the brief hearing, Subramanium said it was alleged that Karti had bank accounts at offshore destinations and “properties all over the Universe“.
Appearing for Karti, senior advocate Gopal Subramanium submitted that case is basically to target father Chidambaram.”What is the subject matter of inquiry is not me but my father who happened to be the Finance Minister giving FIPB approvals to a company in 2007 and it is alleged that one of the conditions had been violated,” said Subramanium representing Karti. He said that not a single person of the six-member FIPB, who were secretary-level officers, were examined in the case.
During the brief hearing, Subramanium said it was alleged that Karti had bank accounts at offshore destinations and “properties all over the Universe“.
“However, no questions were asked on these,” he said. The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also took on record the documents placed by the CBI in a sealed cover in connection with the case and allowed it to furnish other documentary proof about Karti’s alleged foreign accounts and properties abroad.
The court also asked the CBI to file a rejoinder to the affidavit filed by Karti on his questioning and fixed the matter for hearing on September 11. The apex court also did not allow the plea of senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing co-accused and Director in Karti linked companies Ravi Vishwanathan, that his client is allowed to travel abroad for the admission of his son.
After the second day’s questioning on Aug 28, CBI has directed Karti to be present again, if the agency wants to clarify any doubts or need further clarification on the answers given.
When the allegation is that the son benefited by using his relationship, to plead that the prosecution’s target is the father and not the son is ingehuous, a red herring, an attempt to deflect the course of the trial. The prosecution has to prove the case against the son. If that is done, and the father gets involved, what can be the complaint? After all if omlet is to be made, eggs ave to be broken.
You are spot on.