SURESH NANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction

(2.) The Petitioner states that he is a Non-Resident Indian ('NRI') having a permanent residence in the United Kingdom ('UK'). He holds an Indian passport. As a result of a sting operation carried out by a tabloid 'Tehelka' in 2001 the Government of India set up a Commission of Inquiry (COI) which in the first phase was presided over by Justice K. Venkataswami and later by Justice S.N. Phukan. The said COI concluded some time in 2004. Thereafter on 9th October 2006, the CBI registered two FIRs. The first was FIR No. RC-1C1 2006-A0004 which concerned the payment of kickbacks in the matter of procurement of Barak-I Anti Missile Defence systems and 200 missiles for the Indian Navy. The second was FIR No. RC-1(A)/2006-ACU-(V) which concerned the payment of kickbacks for the supply of 87 Armoured Recovery Vehicles to the Ministry of Defence during 1989-99. Both FIRs are for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ('PCA'). The allegation against the petitioner was that he acted as a middle man in the said transactions. In the first FIR, the named accused include the then Defence Minister Mr. George Fernandes, the then Naval Chief Admiral Mr. Sushil Kumar and the petitioner. In the second FIR, the public servants involved are stated to be unknown. It is stated that after registering the two FIRs various premises suspected to be associated with the Petitioner were searched on 10th October 2006. Although nothing incriminating was found, the passports of all the members of the Nanda family including that of the Petitioner Mr. Suresh Nanda were seized.

(3.) The Petitioner states that since he was a resident of the UK and was required to attend to his business there, he applied to the court of the Special Judge (CBI), on 2nd January 2007 for release of his passport. The Petitioner's application was listed before that Court on 15th January 2007. Three days prior thereto, on 12th January 2007, the CBI served the Petitioner a detailed questionnaire asking him to respond by 15th January 2007. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the CBI. It is stated that the CBI refused to accept the reply since the enclosed documents were not attested. The Petitioner states that he got the documents attested and produced them before the Special Judge (CBI) on 15th January and on that date the Special Judge (CBI) made an order permitting the Petitioner to travel to UK and Dubai.