The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) accused Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P. Chidambaram, of closing several bank accounts abroad when he came under the scanner of the probe agency.
The CBI is investigating Mr. Karti in connection with kickbacks allegedly received in connection with the INX Media FIPB clearance case. Mr. Karti had moved the Supreme Court challenged a lookout circular (LOC) issued by the government, preventing him from travelling abroad.
In an hour-long hearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, the CBI tried to hand over documents in a sealed cover, which it said had certain “shocking facts” against Mr. Karti.
Also read: My rights are under attack, says Karti | Question me, not Karti: Chidambaram
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr. Karti, immediately objected, saying the CBI was trying to prejudice the court. Mr. Sibal said if the agency had a shred of evidence against his client, it should register an FIR rather than coming to every apex court hearings with sealed cover reports.
“If you have documentary evidence, register an FIR, prosecute me (Karti) for black money or FERA or whatever... they (CBI) interrogated me twice, and not a single question about any foreign bank account or anything was asked. They cannot show a single piece of paper with my signature,” Mr. Sibal countered.
Mr. Sibal said the LOC was issued without even a prior notice to him to appear before the CBI. “I was abroad, I came back. This is not a case where I ran away or something,” he said.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for CBI, said he did not want to “embarrass” Mr. Karti by revealing the contents of the sealed cover report. Mr. Mehta said Mr. Sibal's objections has however forced his hand. With this preliminary remark, Mr. Mehta said that unlike Mr. Karti's claims that he had only one foreign bank account, CBI documents show that he went abroad to close several accounts and “large amounts of money” were moved.
Mr. Mehta said the present FIR, following which the LOC was issued, was a “broad-based” one within which the new revelations would fit in.
The court adjourned the case to October 4.
