- News>
- Newspapers
Flex diaries, flexible interpretations : The Hindustan Times
There are two diaries for almost every high-profile investigation the CBI undertakes. One is its own case diary; the other is usually maintained by one of the accused. There was the notorious Jain Hawala diary. Sukh Ram loved to jot things down. A diary provided the CBI some low-grade fodder in the animal husbandry scam
There are two diaries for almost every high-profile investigation the CBI undertakes. One is its own case diary; the other is usually maintained by one of the accused. There was the notorious Jain Hawala diary. Sukh Ram loved to jot things down. A diary provided the CBI some low-grade fodder in the animal husbandry scam
And now, Flex Industries' Ashok Chaturvedi's cryptic musings in a dog-eared volume is part of the evidence against senior excise and customs officer Someshwar Mishra.
Chaturvedi made the entry '50:50' against Mishra's name in his book. Recall that Mishra took half of his alleged Rs 10 lakh bribe at home and the other half in the office. So it doesn't take Einstein to figure that that's what the '50:50' meant. Right?
Maybe it does. For each time the CBI has produced a diary with its allegedly incriminating entries, the courts have shown the agency (and the evidence) the door.
Take Sukh Ram's telecom case. According to the CBI, the diary in which the former minister allegedly recorded the payments he'd received, appending each figure with an 'L'. The agency argued that the letter L stood for 'Lakh'.
Sukh Ram, however, turned the story into a dairy tale in court. He said that the L stood for litres, and that he kept scrupulous accounts of the milk consumed in his household. Any cream he was skimming off was thus accounted for. Sukh Ram was acquitted by the Delhi High Court in January.
The CBI hasn't had any luck with the other diaries either. All 26 politicians who featured in the Jain diaries have been acquitted.
Alleged Dawood aide Romesh Sharma's diary made a grand entry, but an unceremonious exit. And the agency could never quite convince anyone that 'Nero' in Martin Ardbo's diary in the Bofors case was Arun Nehru and not the emperor who fiddled while Rome burned.
Chaturvedi made the entry '50:50' against Mishra's name in his book. Recall that Mishra took half of his alleged Rs 10 lakh bribe at home and the other half in the office. So it doesn't take Einstein to figure that that's what the '50:50' meant. Right?
Maybe it does. For each time the CBI has produced a diary with its allegedly incriminating entries, the courts have shown the agency (and the evidence) the door.
Take Sukh Ram's telecom case. According to the CBI, the diary in which the former minister allegedly recorded the payments he'd received, appending each figure with an 'L'. The agency argued that the letter L stood for 'Lakh'.
Sukh Ram, however, turned the story into a dairy tale in court. He said that the L stood for litres, and that he kept scrupulous accounts of the milk consumed in his household. Any cream he was skimming off was thus accounted for. Sukh Ram was acquitted by the Delhi High Court in January.
The CBI hasn't had any luck with the other diaries either. All 26 politicians who featured in the Jain diaries have been acquitted.
Alleged Dawood aide Romesh Sharma's diary made a grand entry, but an unceremonious exit. And the agency could never quite convince anyone that 'Nero' in Martin Ardbo's diary in the Bofors case was Arun Nehru and not the emperor who fiddled while Rome burned.
Each of these diaries may well have had the case in code, but the cracking would take corroborative evidence. Sloppy sleuthing has usually ensured that there is none. In the end, almost as a rule, India's premier investigating agency finds itself in a doodle-soup.