![]() Tuesday, Dec 31, 2002 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Karnataka
By Our Special Correspondent
He was countering the Janata Dal (U) demand for a CBI probe in view of the ramifications of the case outside the State. Besides Dr. Chandrashekar, the Government fielded the Minister of State for Food Processing, Raju Gowda, to reply to the Opposition allegations on his links with the forest outlaw, Veerappan. Mr. Raju Gowda, whom Veerappan wanted to be sent as an emissary in one of his cassettes, denied any links with Veerappan and maintained that he had cordial relations with Nagappa. The Janata Dal (U) members said that Mr. Raju Gowda could not be in the Ministry as a judicial inquiry had been ordered into the incident. A senior member, B. Somashekar, spoke of how he resigned from the Patel Cabinet after a judicial inquiry was ordered against him (on an allegation of copying in the LL.B examination). It was Mr. Raju Gowda's defence that as he was himself on the hit-list of Veerappan, it was unfair to link his name with that of the outlaw. A Superintendent of Police, Arkesh, had mentioned his name along with those of the film star, Rajkumar, and Nagappa. He challenged the Janata Dal(U) to field Veerappan against him in the next Assembly election. Apart from being an electoral rival of Nagappa, he had no ill-will towards him. Nagappa had lost eight elections, five times against him, three times against his brother and once against another. Contrary to what was being said, he had cordial relations with the slain former Minister. He wondered why he was under attack as it was being said that Veerappan kidnapped him to avenge the arrest of the Tamil activist, Kolathur Mani. Countering the Opposition demand, Dr. Chandrashekar noted that the CBI was under the control of Mr. Advani. A probe by the Central agency had its limitations. He argued that the judicial inquiry ordered by the Cabinet could cover people in Tamil Nadu also. It could be enabled if the Centre issued a "simple notification.'' Moreover, the CBI could only investigate a case but not carry on an inquiry. Till the stage the agency filed the chargesheet against the accused secrecy would mark its work. On the other hand, a judicial commission would conduct its inquiry in the open. Quoting from the Supreme Court judgment in the Vineet Narain or "hawala payment case" (1998), Dr. Chandrashekar said that political interference was possible with regard to a CBI investigation. The CBI investigation went nowhere in the cases registered against the former Chairman of the Steel Authority of India and Maruti Udyog, V. Krishnamurthy. Mr. Krishnamurthy was only harassed and discharged with the CBI unable to file a chargesheet against him. It was the same in the case of the murder of the former BJP MLA, U. Chittaranjan, in Bhatkal in April 1996. Even as the Minister was speaking, the Janata Dal (U) member, B.N. Bachche Gowda, asked if what Dr. Chandrashekar was saying about the CBI reflected the opinion of the Government. The Janata Dal (U) group leader, P.G.R. Sindhia, said the Government was fearful of the CBI as the BJP was ruling at the Centre. The Minister said the rate of success in cases investigated by the CBI was a poor 10 per cent. On the other hand, judicial inquiries had proved to be extraordinarily successful. Of the 15 judicial inquiries held in the State in the last 12 years, the Government had accepted reports in eight cases, and Cabinet sub-committees were studying those of three cases. Jaiprakash Hegde (Ind.) said that even a judicial inquiry needed the support of police investigation.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|