Celebrating 25th wedding anniversary in a Mediterranean city that offers excellent beaches and a pleasant climate with plenty of art and gastronomy is not difficult for an established Delhi businessman, provided he has the time and prudence.
But industrialist Dinesh Arora -- an accused in a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy – could celebrate his silver jubilee of marriage anniversary in Spain only after the court’s permission. It could materialise only after he became an approver in the case.
Arora, who owns cafes and restaurants in several parts of the city, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in July last year, in the same case in which Aam Aadmi Party leaders--former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Parliamentarian Sanjay Singh, and the party communication in-charge Vijay Nair have been arrested.
Interestingly, he has already been declared an “approver” of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probing Delhi excise police 2021-22 related irregularities at the time of his ED arrest.
In October last year, Arora also became an approver of the ED case as the court pardoned him along with another accused in the case.
Approvers in the Excise Policy Scam
Raghav Magunta Reddy, son of YSR Congress Lok Sabha MP Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, became another approver along with Arora in the Excise policy scam case.
Magunta was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on February 10, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), over his alleged involvement in the generation of kickback out of the ‘tweaked’ Delhi Excise Policy that allegedly favoured ‘liquor lobbies’ and caused considerable losses to the Delhi exchequer.
While the Magunta family has been in the liquor business for decades, Raghava Reddy owns Chennai-based liquor manufacturing units, Enrica Enterprises Private Limited. The ED had mentioned that Raghava Reddy was a part of the alleged South Group.
During Raghava Reddy’s arrest, the ED, in its charge sheet, had mentioned that the MP met several key AAP leaders in New Delhi. The ED reportedly believes that Srinivasulu’s statements will act as evidence against AAP leaders who benefitted from the scam.
Another accused Telangana-based businessman, P Sarath Chandra Reddy, the whole-time director and promoter of Aurobindo Pharma, was the second person to become an approver after agreeing to support the case last year.
According to the ED, Chandra Reddy was effectively controlling five retail zones through his group company Trident Chemphar Pvt Ltd and proxy entities, namely Organomixx Ecosystems and Sri Avantika Contractors, in violation of the Excise Policy, which barred any person from controlling more than two retail zones.
Chandra Reddy was a crucial partner in the biggest cartel of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, named the “South Group”, the ED alleged. The ED, which has filed five charge sheets in the matter so far, has named Manish Sisodia in the last one filed on May 5.
Future of Excise Policy Case?
As per legal experts, to strengthen the proof, a probing agency can make an accused in the case an approver as per Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code), in which the Court grants a pardon to the individual who will give provide information of co-accused persons in the case.
In simple terms, the approver strengthens the case and makes it difficult to relieve other accused persons, explains Supreme Court lawyer Adv Vineet Jindal.
In Sanjay Singh’s case, Dinesh Arora is the ‘star witness’, who has allegedly given kickbacks to the former. As per the Remand note seen by this newspaper, Singh has been a part of the conspiracy of collecting kickbacks from the liquor groups in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.
It further says that Sanjay Singh has had a close relationship with Arora since 2017, as revealed by the latter and his call records. Singh’s associates--Vivek Tyagi, Ajit Tyagi, and Sarvesh Mishra also have a close relationship with Arora, the document says.
Sanjay Singh has received proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs 2 crore in the Delhi Liquor Scam on two occasions, the Remand note stated. On one occasion, as per ED investigation, Arora had collected a Rs 3 crore bribe from another liquor businessman, Sameer Mahendru, during August-October 2021, on the directions of AAP communication overseer Vijay Nair.
Of this amount, Rs 1 crore was given to Sarvesh Mishra (Sanjay Singh’s person) at the direction of Nair. This amount was delivered to Singh’s house by an employee of Dinesh Arora, it was noted.
In another important turn of events, Mishra was granted bail by the Rouse Avenue Court last week.
The court said Mishra is not an accused in the scheduled offences case of CBI. Though he has been prosecuted through the fifth supplementary prosecution complaint filed, he was not arrested by the IO of this case during the investigation.
“It has been revealed that Sanjay Singh is a key conspirator in the Delhi liquor scam. He is closely associated with several accused and suspects, including (businessmen) Dinesh Arora and Amit Arora. Singh has exploited and has gained illegal money/kickbacks, which are proceeds of crime generated from the liquor policy (2021-22) scam. Further, he has also played a role in conspiracy with others concerning the excise policy 2020-21,” it read.
Legality of an Approver
The law mandates that the approver shall be a competent witness and shall be examined by the prosecution as a prosecution. As such, the statement made by the Approver is admissible as evidence. It also emphasises that any accused shall not be forced to be a witness.
But what will happen if an approver fails to give evidence as promised? Adv Robin Raju says that once a promise is made to be an approver through a formal application and the accused is, after that, discharged from the case, then there is no specific provision vide which that person can pray to withdraw that application.
Also, the approver who deposes falsely can be tried again for the offence for which a pardon was granted as per S. 308 Cr. PC.
Two provisions under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (Act) shed light on the relevancy of the evidence given by the approver.
According to Section 114 illustration (b) of the Act, the court will presume that the testimony of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless it is corroborated by material particulars.
Notably, Section 133 of the Act provides that the conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon an uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
Supreme Court had observed that the evidence of an approver does not differ from any other witness except that his proof is looked upon with great suspicion. The approver’s statement must be corroborated by factual details that closely bridge the distance between the crime and the criminal.
Certain persuasive features of involvement revealed by an approver belonging directly to the accused, if reliable, the touchstone of other independent, credible evidence, would provide the necessary certainty to accept his testimony on which conviction can be based, the apex court had observed.
NewsClick Case
In a turn of events in the case, which relates to the alleged Chinese funding to News portal NewsClick for promoting its propaganda, Amit Chakraborty, the Human Resources (HR) Head of the news portal NewsClick, has turned an approver, which was permitted by the court earlier this month.
He is now a witness in the terror case lodged under the anti-terror law UAPA. Chakraborty, currently lodged in Tihar Jail, had moved the application before a session’s court earlier in January.
Notably, the Delhi Police had arrested NewsClick founder and Editor Prabir Purkayastha and HR Head Amit Chakraborty in October for allegedly being involved in continuous unlawful activities which included undermining India’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity -- be it protracting farmers’ protest through illegal funding or being involved in a “larger conspiracy” of illegally infusing foreign funds in India through Chinese telecom companies.
According to the FIR registered by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on August 17, this year, large amounts of funds were routed from China in a circuitous and camouflaged manner and paid news was intentionally peddled criticising domestic policies, development projects of India and promoting, projecting and defending policies and programmes of the Chinese government.
It is pertinent to mention here that the case registered by the Delhi Police was based on a reference sent by the ED following its probe last year.
On August 5, this year, The New York Times published a report titled “A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a US Tech Mogul”, which claimed that the news portal NewsClick was part of a global network that received funding from an American millionaire Neville Roy Singham, who allegedly works closely with the Chinese government media. Following the sensational NYT report, NewsClick also claimed that the allegations against it “are unfounded and without basis in fact or law.”
Interestingly, the FIR in the NewsClick case also mentioned the name of activist and journalist Gautam Navlakha, who the police stated has been a shareholder in the Newsclick company since 2018.
As per the cops, Navlakha remained involved in anti-Indian and unlawful activities, such as actively supporting banned Naxal organisations and having an anti-national nexus with Gulam Nabi Fai, who is an agent of ISI.
According to the FIR, Gautam Navlakha was associated with Prabir Purkayastha since 1991, when they incorporated a company through which Purkayastha illegally siphoned off foreign funds.
Sources said the Special Cell of Delhi Police will also interrogate Gautam Navlakha at his residence in Mumbai next week. Navlakha had recently got bail in the Bhima Koregaon case.
VIP Chopper Case
Rajiv Saxena, director at two Dubai-based firms -- UHY Saxena and Matrix Holdings -- was one of the accused named in the charge sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate in the Rs 3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam VVIP chopper case, and he has later turned as an approver in the case.
Saxena, an alleged middleman, was deported to India from Dubai in January 2019 and turned an approver in the ED case in April of the same year. However, the central probe agency sought revocation of his approver status in November last year, alleging that he had misled the investigators and was “not reliable”.
The CBI had alleged that there was an estimated loss of Euro 398.21 million (about Rs 2,666 crore) to the exchequer in the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010, for the supply of VVIP choppers worth Euro 556.262 million.
In the case, alleged middleman British Citizen Christian Michel, who was extradited from Dubai on December 4, 2018, has been in judicial custody since then. Michel had also approached the Supreme Court against Delhi High Court’s order refusing to grant him bail on the ground that he covered u/s 436A of CrPC, which deals with the maximum period for an under-trial prisoner to be detained.
He had stated in his plea that he had covered 50% of his maximum sentence, which, according to sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was five years.
Michel’s lawyer, Aljo K Joseph, says his client had pressure to approve the case in 2017 and 2018. Even top CBI officials approached him multiple times in Dubai, offering him a clean chit in the case, forcing him to be an approver, he said.
Christian James Michel’s lawyer Aljo K Joseph says his client had pressure to became approver in the Augusta Westland chopper case. Back in 2017, the CBI officials visited him multiple times in Dubai and pressurised him to sign a confession note prepared by them. Even top CBI officials approached him multiple times in Dubai offering him a clean chit in the case and forcing him to be an approver and implicate many persons. Even after his arrest in 2018 December there were huge pressure on him from different agencies to became and approver and also give a confession statement. Christian James Michel is still in judicial custody and his bail was rejected by Supreme Court.