Experts point to loopholes in CBI charges against Rakesh Asthana

NEW DELHI: The CBI on Tuesday claimed that the FIR against Rakesh Asthana was based on evidence which could stand legal scrutiny but legal experts spotted many infirmities in the agency’s case against its special director. Among the loopholes, one stood out in particular — the allegation that complainant Sathish Babu Sana frequently talked to Dubai-based accused brothers Manoj and Somesh Prasad through WhatsApp calls.

The UAE doesn’t allow WhatsApp calls. The Prasad brothers are central to Sana’s narrative against Asthana. The founder of Playboy Club in Hyderabad has claimed that the alleged deal to pay Rs 5 crore to Asthana and his investigating officers to close the case against him was brokered by the two brothers.

There is something else which has engaged the attention of many in the CBI as well as political and legal circles. As per Sana, he paid Rs 1.95 crore as the second instalment of bribe to Sunil Mittal in the parking lot of the Press Club of India in Delhi.

This account turns Mittal into a crucial figure for the CBI. Intriguingly, no one from the agency has so far talked to him. This, when Mittal, who happens to be Somesh’s father-in-law, is a lawyer and can easily be accessed. In fact, Mittal’s relationship with Somesh does not figure in the FIR.

The CBI said on Tuesday that it had stiffened the case against Asthana by adding extortion and forgery charges along with criminal conspiracy and corruption. However, some legal experts questioned the CBI’s move to rest such an important case on Sana’s testimony when he was himself being investigated for his role in one of the most high-profile corruption cases.

Indeed, Asthana had approached the CBI director for permission to arrest Sana. Moreover, under the amended Prevention of Corruption Act, by allegedly paying a bribe, Sana has rendered himself liable to be prosecuted just like the person whom he has accused of seeking bribes from him.

“According to Section 8 of the amended PC Act, a person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person to induce a public servant to perform a public duty improperly shall himself be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It says that if the person has been compelled to give any undue advantage, he/she should have reported the matter within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage,” said senior advocate Vijay Aggarwal.

The CBI maintained in court that it didn’t need permission from the government under Section 17A of PC Act as the allegations didn’t relate to any decision taken by Asthana and Devender Kumar in discharge of their public duty.