Transcript of the discussion, CBI did not care to look at but approached the trial court to cancel the bail of pawan https://t.co/Hwbz8B2elA
— Adv. Somnath Bharti (@attorneybharti) January 14, 2014
This is a case of a major scandal in public sector bank taken up by me
pro bono. The fraud was to the tune of Rs. 116 crores. The internal vigilance
inquiry of the Bank had found very senior officers involved in it. It is common
sense that such large scale scandals cannot take place without the involvement
of the senior authorities. It is also common knowledge that in such cases, the
senior officers are let off and some very junior employee, who does not have
the influence and resources to secure protection for himself, is made the scape
goat. In this case too, a very junior employee, Pawan, was made the scapegoat
by the CBI and all the senior ones, who were found guilty in the internal
vigilance inquiry of the bank, were let off.
When the case came up before the CBI Court, the judge was quite
surprised at this anomaly. She recorded in her order dated 05.07.2012 the
following which is sufficient to show the truth on this issue:
“After going through the charge sheet, I am of the opinion that accused
Manmohan Singh, B.S. Diwakar, P. Siwarami Reddy, S. Suryanarayana have not been
arrested or charge sheeted by the IO. The reasons for not filing charge sheet
against them are not clear. Neither it is clear as to what has happened in
investigation against them and their role.”
The persons mentioned by the Judge were all senior officers, and Pawan,
the sole accused was junior to all of them. Interestingly, these seniors who
were let off were made witnesses against the poor and junior most sole accused.
In this situation, I felt that it was the duty
of every citizen to ensure that such miscarriage of justice should be
prevented. A higher duty was cast on my consciousness, as a pro bono counsel,
to ensure justice to a junior employee being made scapegoat for the actions of
seniors. Doubts that things are not what they were strengthened by the unusual
happenings in the proceedings. The witnesses did not appear at appointed time,
the court issued warrants, the witnesses appeared a few hours later with
identical excuses that they were stuck in traffic jams as duly recorded in
orders 21.01.2013, 22.01.2013, 23.01.2013, 12.02.2013 and 13.02.2013. That is
where I decided to speak to a witness to bring the truth in public domain. Yet,
the following part of my conversation on
phone (full unaudited copy and transcript are attached) is noteworthy:
B S Diwakar: ……Mr. Pawan was talking very high of you so after hearing
that I also thought that I should have word with you.
……………………..
B S Diwakar: Actually Pawan was
talking to me because he worked with me in Calcutta
……………………
Somnath Bharti: right right right but I want to know from your side what
is CBI up to (in the background of repeated adjournments on the ground that
witnesses were turning up) ?
B S Diwakar : This is the CBI people out of all of them they have
exonerated me in all the three cases because the bank wanted that I should not
do any investigation further.
……………………………………………….
B.S. Diwakar: “…… because I know
that you have to safeguard Pawan’s interest.”
Somnath Bharti: “No, no, Pawan interest is one, but otherwise, see if
Pawan is guilty in this I shall not defend him.”
………………………………………………..
B S Diwakar: …….my bank never wanted me to investigate further in the
matter because some of the banks like Punjab National Bank, Indian Bank I wrote
to them very directly using very strong word, so these CEO taken objection I do
not know what pressure can brought it on my management my management
immediately took a decision to suspend me without giving any ???
……………………………………………..
B S Diwakar: ………………….Then we had that we had one DGM called P.D. Agarwal
he was the boss of our Delhi region he had a full of friend circle in the top
management his batch mates had become GMs that time he had a two GMs and one
Chief General Manager he had an association as worked with them somewhere in
other bank.
MR. SOMNATH BHARTI: I see
MR. B S DIWAKAR: So all of them they took a
hardship decision although they were not inclined to put me under suspension
they say this man may prove to be dangerous to us we have to put him offside
and you believe me after the suspending me they put another person from another
branch who did only the post mortem, he did not carry any investigation he did
not go to the root cause of the problem.
I am also surprised that, though I had handed over the audio recording
to the CBI on 19.08.2013, the CBI, for their own reasons, have not taken it on
record and have not used it in investigations.
It is us who wanted to bring the telephonic conversation on record for
the ld. Court to take cognizance contents of which when became known to CBI
Prosecutor he immediately filed an application for cancellation of bail. Ld.
Court decided both the applications together and to utter shock, while
application of CBI was allowed and bail was cancelled our application for
bringing on record the audio tape was disallowed. Pawan was immediately
arrested in the court itself on 26.08.2013.
Since poor Pawan was immediately arrested and his lone wife and 4 months
old child were left unprotected with no one to look after, getting him out
became my first priority. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to bad luck of Pawan did
not go along with my views and upheld lower court advising us to approach lower
court, for bail, after cross examination of Mr. B S Diwakar gets over.
SLP against this in Hon’ble Supreme Court was filed but withdrawn
because by the time it was to get listed before a bench, cross examination of
Mr. B S Diwakar got over and under Pawan’s family pressure I had to file bail
application in the lower court itself as bail was possible in view of the
observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 12.09.2013.
Pursuing in the Hon’ble SC would have meant Pawan in Jail at least for a month
more but in the interest of Pawan’s lone house wife and 4 months old child and
my ultra-busy election campaign I decided to opt for the lower court
jurisdiction for bail. Though it did mean that I had let go my disagreement
with lower court and then hon’ble high court’s orders/judgments which, if
pursued in Hon’ble SC, has more probability to get turned down but Pawan having
come out on bail had made the reason to approach infructuous and thus the
injustice inflicted upon Pawan remained unattended.
In the third of the three cases which is being tried in the court of Mr.
Vinay Kumar Gupta, Ld ASJ, CBI Court, the ld. Court has come very heavy on CBI
for not tracking the money and for doing shoddy investigation. In this case the
trial is not proceeding because of CBI’s inaction to the best of their ability.
From the above, it is clear that, I was a counsel in this case, pro
bono, without any financial interest, that there are sufficient facts to show
that the case had been loaded against a poor accused to protect powerful
people, that the judge herself had noted this anomaly. I had, even during the
telephonic conversation made clear my good faith that I shall not defend anyone
who is prima facie guilty. Let the people judge whether in this situation, poor
Pawan should have been left to fend for himself against powerful interests or I
should have done everything in my power to bring out the truth.
