crime-nanda-kuma-plea

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT IV (CBI COURT) ERNAKULAM

CMP No: of 2010

in

RC No. 07 (A)/ 2007

Petitioner:

T. P. Nandakumar

S/o Damodaran Nair

Chief Editor

Crime fortnightly

Puthiyara Road, Calicut- 4.

Respondent:

Central Bureau of Investigation

Madras unit, represented by

Public Prosecutor, CBI court

All processes and notices to the petitioner may be served on his counsel M/s Manoj R Nair, Mareena Joseph, Susan Mathews& N S Raveendranathan, Advocates, Embees Building, Market Road, North End (Kombara), Kochi.

Processes and notices to the respondents may be served on their address shown above.

PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 173(8) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

1. The petitioner is a well known Journalist and the Chief Editor of the Magazine called “CRIME” published fortnightly. The magazine “CRIME” mainly concentrated in investigative journalism and to expose corruption in various and different levels. Petitioner brought to light various controversial public issues by filing PIL writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court Kerala after exposing the investigative story in Petitioner’s “CRIME” fortnightly. During the year 2001 the petitioner’s “CRIME” fortnightly exposed Kerala’s largest corruption case that Kerala has ever seen, now notoriously known as SNC LAVLIN CASE in connection with the renovation and modernization of three Hydro Electric Projects Pallivasal, Panniyar and Shenkulam.
2. After the publication of the said news item in the magazine, several attempts were made at various levels to destroy the petitioner and his publication. The petitioner was threatened with dire consequences and he even approached the Hon’ble High Court for the protection of his life and property. The petitioners press and office were attacked and the valuables and the documents pertaining to the SNC LAVLIN were also destroyed. The Kasba Police Calicut also registered two cases in respect of the said incidents.
3. Even though the State Vigilance initiated proceedings against certain persons involved in the SNC LAVLIN scam, the said investigation was not at all aimed to book the real culprits. Finally the petitioner himself approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P.C No.29124/ 05 for an impartial and independent enquiry by the CBI mainly contenting that FCRA violation is involved in the case for which CBI alone can enquire into the matter. The Hon’ble High Court allowed the said writ petition and the Hon’ble High Court entrusted the matter to the CBI for an enquiry. Since the enquiry was protracted and prolonged for various reasons which is irrelevant for the purpose of the present petition, the petitioner again approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P.C No.2588/ 2008 for conducting the enquiry under the supervision of the Hon’ble High Court. The said prayer was also allowed by the Hon’ble High Court.

The photocopy of the judgment in W.P.C No.29124/ 05 & W.P.C No.2588/ 2008 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure – A1& A2 respectively.

4. In short, in a sense the petitioner is the defacto complainant and the CBI himself cited the petitioner as witness No. 108 in the witness list. Thus the petitioner have every authority and locus standi to file the present petition before this Hon’ble Court.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner to brought certain material aspects before this Hon’ble Court which was not brought before this Hon’ble Court by any of the parties in the proceedings. For example

· The CBI has not yet enquired the bribe money transaction between the accused particularly with A7. An enquiry has not been initiated against Mr.Dileep Rahulan and Mr.Nazar, who are the mediators in this unlawful transaction, who have also signed the agreement as witnesses which is produced along with the final report. To the best of the petitioner’s knowledge these persons are the main accused in this case who collected the bribe money from SNC LAVLIN company and shared it with the co- accused. It is understood that those persons were not summoned or questioned by the CBI which is a serious lacuna in the process of investigation which will ultimately help the accused during the process of trial.

· The 7th accused has made more than 100 visits to Singapore and Dubai secretly for the transaction and dealings of bribe money and for his other business deals with this money(most of which is illicit). The investigating agency will get a clear picture of the travel details of the 7^th accused on going through the passport details of the said accused. It is also learned that the 7^th accused have two passports, one at Kochi and the another based at Chennai. It is also learned that the 7^th accused surrendered one of his passports as soon as the CBI investigation against him started.

· Mr. Dileep Rahulan and Mr. Nazar worked as mediators in the SNC Lavalin deal. In accordance with the mutual understanding between Mr. Dileep Rahulan, Nazar and 7^th accused, the then Electricity Minister of Kerala agreed to sign the unlawful agreement with SNC Lavlin company without inviting any global tenders. The deal took place without a proper consent from the then government or the KSEB. What more, a feasibility study was not even conducted and the agreement was signed flouting all existing rules and practices. According to the agreement entered in to between the said Parties, SNC Lavalin had paid the margin money and commission to Dileep Rahulan on behalf of 7^th accused which comes more than 100 crores. Dileep in turn paid the amount to the 7^th accused and some others in return for the commission and margin money.

· It is also learned that the said Mr. Dileep Rahulan had paid 8 crores of Indian rupees to the 7^th accused through Mr. Nazar. The said money was also used by the 7^th accused for the construction of party office and also building up a TV channel.

· Most of the building contractors who were involved with the renovation work had collected black money. Accepting the request from some of the contractors the 7^th accused had deposited some money in banks as donations from various names of various persons, in different dates. Likewise cheques were given to the parties.

· Dileep Rahulan had paid a huge amount of the 7^th accused at various locations including Kannur in Kerala. He had used various NRI bank accounts to withdraw money. For instance; he had used the bank account of one Beena Abraham, who is close associate of Mr. Dileep Rahulan.

· After the SNC Lavlin agreement, Mr. Dileep left India and became Australian citizen and started a business in UAE in the name of ‘Pacific Control’ using the SNC Lavlin funds. The ‘Pacific Control’ has branches in 7 countries including Singapore and Australia.

· During the visit of the 7^th accused to Canada between 1996 October and 1997 June, Dileep rahulan had also accompanied him. Dileep rahulan and Nazar signed as witnesses in the MOU between SNC Lavlin company and the Electricity Board for the Malabar Cancer center to get a foreign contribution fund of about 98.3 crores of rupees.

· SNC Lavlin, Canada had collected the fund for Malabar cancer Center and had transferred it to Dileep Rahulan’s company, instead of paying it directly to Malabar Cancer Center, Thalassery. These illegal transactions were done as per the directives of the 7^th accused and others. Technicalia had spent 11.88 crores to construct the building of Malabar Cancer Center. The CBI did not investigate the exact money source and transaction in these deals.

· The tenders were not invited for the Malabar Cancer Center (for the building construction). All this was done with due mutual understanding between the 7^th accused, Dileep Rahulan, Sasidharan Nair (PRO of Malabar Cancer Center) and Technicalia, Chennai.

· The 7^th accused reconstructed his house using about two crore rupees of SNC Lavlin bribery money and spent about one crore rupees towards the educational expenses of the 7^th accused son who is a student in Birmingham University in UK.

It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner filed a detailed representation before the investigating officer foe an enquiry for various aspects referred in the petition and also for other aspects. The photocopy of the representation submitted by the petitioner before the investigating officer at Chennai is produced herewith and marked as Annexure- A3. Similarly other serious irregularities are also pointed out by the petitioner before the investigative agency. For example even though KSEB is a board, it is stated that the KSEB is a company. It is agreed by the accused that in case of any litigation arise between the parties the Canadian law will prevail which is also a clear example of conspiracy aginst state.

Thus the investigating agency omitted to note and enquire certain very serious points in the final reports. Those points are very relevant and if the same is not enquired, it will definitely help the accused and will badly affect the interest of the state.

Hence the present petition is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs.

1. To direct the investigating agency to summon and question the persons who signed the MOU document and to submit a report before this Hon’ble court.
2. Since the further investigation ordered by this Hon’ble is prolonged for a pretty period, the investigation should be directed to be conducted and completed under the supervision of the Hon’ble court.
3. To enquire the various points raised in this petition and to submit the final report covering all those points.

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2010.

Petitioner:

True Copy

List of documents:

a) Photocopy of the judgment in W.P.C No.29124/ 05 & W.P.C No.2588/ 2008.

b) Photocopy of the representation submitted by the Petitioner.