|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, July 20, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Southern States
| Previous
| Next
Prosecutor can't pinpoint main accused in flyover case
By Our Staff Reporter
CHENNAI, JULY 19. The `flyover scam case' today witnessed a
curious twist, when a Special Public Prosecutor informed court
that he could not say who was the main accused.
In the course of arguments on the anticipatory bail petitions of
two of the accused, the Principal Sessions Judge, Mr. S. Ashok
Kumar, wanted to know who was the main accused in the case. The
SPP, Mr. A. Raghunathan, replied ``I cannot pinpoint and say so
and so was the main accused or not,'' sparking laughter in the
court hall.
(The judge reserved orders on the anticipatory bail applications
of Mr. Raja Shankar and Mr. N. Raghavan for July 23).
When Mr. Ashok Kumar asked about the status of a complaint lodged
with the Chief Minister and the then Governor by some Corporation
councillors, Mr. Raghunathan said he was not aware of the
``details of the said report''. In fact, he obtained a day's
adjournment yesterday, with an assurance that he would bring the
details of the status of the `report'. Had any complaint been
registered following the report to the Governor and the Chief
Minister, the FIR would have reached the court also, Mr.
Raghunathan said. To this, the judge said, ``even in this case
the FIR copy did not reach this court in time''.
Opposing anticipatory bail to Mr. Raghavan, the SPP said the
petitioner's company (L&T Ramboll) had received Rs. 1.2 crores
for submitting a project report, which contained purchase details
in which he had quoted ``astronomical figures''. He also claimed
that L&T Ramboll was a sister-concern of L&T, which had bagged
the flyover construction contract eventually.
Differentiating between the two firms as per the Companies Act,
the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chandru, pointed out
that employing a consultancy firm of repute was a prerequisite
for the World Bank funding the flyover project.
Denying that any conspiracy existed at that stage, he said L&T
Ramboll quoted Rs. 120 lakhs, as against Rs. 298 lakhs and Rs.
713 lakhs by the other participants. Since only nine of the
proposed 11 flyovers had been constructed, the final fee was
negotiated and the L&T Ramboll received Rs. 1 crore as
consultancy fee.
``The consultancy was with respect to the design, expected
quantities to be used in the project and the quality of the
products to be procured for the project,'' Mr. Chandru noted.
Counsel for the second petitioner wanted to know how Mr. Raja
Shankar was connected with the alleged conspiracy, and how was
his role different from that of Dr. N. S. Srinivasan, who had
already been enlarged on bail by the court. Mr. Raja Shankar was
engaged only on an honorary basis, and he was not dealing with
the monetary aspects of the project, he said, adding he was not
present in any of the two committees exclusively formed to
monitor and implement the flyover project.
Earlier, the prosecution agreed to relax certain bail conditions
for Dr. Srinivasan, who was now staying in Bangalore as per the
conditions. However, if his interrogation was required, he would
be informed a week in advance.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Southern States Previous : Dalit-friendly GO still on the back burner Next : Ramesh letters contradictory, says Muthukaruppan | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|