New Delhi, July 29
The Central Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday sought most punishment of 7-year jail time period for former Samata Party President Jaya Jaitly and two others discovered responsible of corruption in a 2000-01 case associated to a purported defence deal.
Special CBI decide Virender Bhat, who had held Jaitly, her former celebration colleague Gopal Pacherwal and Major General (retired) SP Murgai responsible of corruption and prison conspiracy within the purported buy of hand-held thermal imagers, reserved the order for Thursday.
The case stemmed out of a sting operation ‘Operation Westend’ aired by information portal Tehelka in January 2001.
During the proceedings held in-camera, the CBI stated the convicts must be handled firmly because the crime was of very critical nature and be given the utmost jail time period of seven 12 months jail time period.
The counsel showing for the convict individuals, nonetheless, sought leniency on the bottom that they had been aged, the court docket sources stated.
The court docket had held that each one the three accused individuals, together with Surender Kumar Surekha (who later turned approver), had been a celebration to a prison conspiracy that befell round December 2000 and January 2001 at Delhi.
The court docket noticed that whereas Jaitly accepted unlawful gratification of Rs 2 lakh from Mathew Samuel, a consultant of fictional firm Westend International, Murgai acquired Rs 20,000.
The unlawful gratification was accepted for acquiring provide orders for handheld thermal imagers from the military. All the three accused—Jaitly, Pacherwal and Murgai—were convicted of the offence of conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC learn with Section 9 (taking gratification, for train of private affect with public servant) of Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
The court docket held that it’s “proved beyond doubt that in the meeting in the hotel room on December 25, 2000, Surekha and Murgai assured their assistance to Samuel in procuring letter of evaluation for the product of his company from the Ministry of Defence and also to arrange a meeting between him and accused Jaya Jaitly who would provide political cover to them in this regard”.
The court docket stated it was agreed that Samuel would pay Rs 1 lakh every to Surekha and Murgai and Rs 2 lakh to accused Jaitly on this regard.
“Thus there had been an agreement between them to obtain the evaluation letter for the concerned product by illegal means i.e. by resort to corruption and personal influence upon the concerned officials,” it stated, including that “accordingly, Pacherwal arranged the said meeting for December 28, 2000. He too was present in the said meeting in the room of Jaitly along with Surekha, Samuel and Murgai.”
The court docket stated: “In that meeting, which took place in the official residence of the then Union Minister for Defence, George Fernandes, Samuel was introduced to Jaitly as a businessman whose company intends to enter the market of defence procurement”.
“Samuel offered the sum of Rs 2 lakh to Jaitly who instructed him to handover the money to Pacherwal and accordingly, the money was received by accused Pacherwal knowing that it was bribe money. In lieu thereof, Jaitly assured Samuel that in case the product of his company is not considered, she would intervene by making a request to ‘Sahib’ (purportedly the Defence Minister Mr. George Fernandes) to send a word to the concerned officer in this regard,” the decide noticed.
The court docket stated each the accused, Pacherwal and Jaitly, are additionally responsible of the offence of conspiracy, the court docket stated.
“Jaitly received a sum of Rs 2 lakhs through Pacherwal from Samuel as a motive/reward for agreeing to accomplish the task given to her i.e. to exert personal influence upon the concerned Ministers/ Officers in pushing the product of the company of Samuel into the Indian Army,” it stated.
Similarly, Murgai acquired Rs 20,000 from Samuel on January 4, 2000 in lieu of the help rendered by him in arranging a gathering with Jaitly and securing letter of analysis for the product of the corporate of by train of private affect upon the involved officers, the court docket famous.
“Therefore, both of them have committed offence envisaged under Section 9 of the PC Act,” it stated. PTI