Lowdown on how feud at the top unfolded

NEW DELHI: The feud now playing out in public between the two top officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), its director Alok Verma and special director Rakesh Asthana, first came into the public domain in October last year when the former tried to stall the latter’s promotion to his current post, although it had been simmering even before Verma took over as the chief of the federal investigation agency on February 1, 2017. Hindustan Times chronicles key developments in the bitter saga, which on Tuesday entered what seems to be the end game when Asthana approached the Delhi high court against the filing of a bribery case against him by the agency .

In his petition, Asthana sought a directive from the high court that no coercive action be taken against him. On the same day, the agency presented before special CBI judge Santosh Snehi Mann, deputy superintendent of police Devendra Kumar, arrested in connection with the bribery case against Asthana. It claimed that Kumar, who was arrested on Monday, was part of an extortion racket being run in the garb of an investigation.

Asthana has accused Verma of attempting to induct tainted officers into the agency and interfering in investigations carried out under his supervision and made a formal complaint to the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary has asked the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to look into his representation.

CBI, in a formal statement on September 21, said the special director was being probed in six different cases being investigated by the agency. On Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told CBI chief, Verma, to “let the law take its own course” when the latter briefed him on the allegations against Asthana, an official familiar with the development said on Monday. CBI expanded its probe into the case on Monday by

arresting Kumar. Investigators are preparing to question two supervisory officers — one of superintendent of police rank and the other of inspector general — in the case.

The agency will also seek a clarification from a senior intelligence official who investigators suspect may have been acting in his “individual capacity”. “Director Verma separately met national security adviser Ajit Doval too,” said the CBI official cited above. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Prime Minister’s Office did not offer any comment on the meeting. But a senior official confirmed that the PM met the CBI chief. The CBI official said Verma was likely to recommend the suspension and immediate repatriation

of Asthana to his parent cadre of Gujarat in a day or two. The bribery case against Asthana has been registered on a complaint by a Hyderabad-based businessman, Sana Satish Babu, who alleged that two Dubai-based brothers — Manoj Prasad and Somesh Prasad — claimed that they were acting on behalf of the CBI special director and allegedly struck a deal for ~ 5 crore to protect him (Babu) in a case that the agency registered against controversial meat exporter Moin Qureshi last year.

Former CBI director AP Singh is also an accused in the case. Two months before the registration of the case, Asthana complained to cabinet secretary Pradeep Sinha that it was Verma who asked him in February to call off the questioning

of the Hyderabad-based businessman.

Asthana alleged that Satish Babu was being protected by Verma under a ~ 2 crore deal. The cabinet secretary forwarded this complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). Asthana cited nine other instances in which he alleged that Verma and agency joint director Arun Kumar Sharma were trying to interfere in investigations with ulterior motives.

CBI has formally denied the charges against Verma and Sharma.

The agency has now named Satish Babu as a witness in the case against Qureshi. Asthana wrote to the CVC that he recommended Satish Babu’s arrest in the case in September . After the registration of the FIR against Asthana, CBI arrested the alleged middleman in the case, Manoj Prasad, who is in the agency’s custody.

On Monday, CBI named Kumar as an accused in the case on charges of fabricating records. Kumar was the designated investigation officer in the case against Qureshi.the agency, in a formal statement, said:

“The matter relates to the creation of a statement under section 161 (Criminal Procedure Code) of Shri Satish Sana, a witness in Moin Qureshi case, showing it to be recorded on September 26, 2018 at Delhi.

During the investigation, it has been found that Shri Sana was not present in Delhi on that day and was in Hyderabad.” NEW DELHI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which investigates violations of foreign exchange rules, on Tuesday filed formal money laundering charges in a case involving pharmaceutical company Sterling Biotech that formed the genesis of the fight between Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chief Alok Verma and his deputy Rakesh Asthana.

According to the ED, the group has defrauded banks to the tune ~ 8,100 crore after taking loans from their domestic as well as foreign branches. Group promoters, brothers Nitin and Chetan Sandesara, are now on the run. The ED is initiating action under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act against the Sandesara brothers.

The group’s premises were raided by the income tax department in 2011 and during searches a diary containing details of payments made by group executives to various bureaucrats and companies was recovered. Some of the payments were made to tax officers, too. The IT department handed over the case to the CBI for further action under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the ED was roped in to probe money laundering charges.

One of the diary entries was construed as payment made to Asthana, now special director in the CBI, and it was denoted “RA”. In October last year. CBI director Verma tried to stall Asthana’s promotion as special director on the basis of the diary entries, but the move failed.

In a later probe, the CBI found evidence that the “RA” stood for a running account which the company had with another firm. Asthana has alleged that the CBI deliberately kept the evidence that could have exonerated him under the wraps. The ED said cash to the tune of Rs 140 crore was withdrawn from the shell companies and used to bribe “public servants”.

The whereabouts of the promoters are not known to the investigating agencies.