<p>Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vinod Yadav concurred with the CBI’s contention that continuing proceedings against Quattrocchi is a waste of money.<br /><br />The judge relied upon verdicts of the Delhi High Court discharging other accused in the case, besides rulings by Malaysian and Argentinian courts to refuse Quattrocchi’s extradition and free the man known to be close to the family of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. <br /><br />“The very question which stares us at our faces is whether it is justified for the Government of India (CBI) to continue to spend on the extradition of ‘Q’, which may or may not ultimately happen during his lifetime.<br /><br />“Can we allow this hard earned money of ‘aam aadmi’ (common man) of India to be spent on these type of proceedings which are not going to do any good to them, after almost 25 years of the so-called ‘Arm Deal,’ ” the court asked. “The answer would be a big ‘No,’ ” the judge declared.<br /><br />The court allowed the CBI prosecutor’s application filed under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code saying that “it is bona fide and in larger public interest.”<br /><br />HC findings<br /><br />The judge also referred to the notable findings of the Delhi High Court in which the CBI was rapped for spending about Rs 250 crore on probing the alleged kickback of Rs 64 crore.<br /><br />“Despite spending through its nose for about 21 years, the CBI has not been able to put forward legally sustainable evidence with regard to conspiracy in the matter. Further in the case of ‘Q’ (Quattrocchi), as against the alleged kickback of Rs 64 crore, the CBI by the year 2005 had already spent around Rs 250 crore on the investigation, which is sheer wastage of public money,” the judge said.<br /><br />He also recited Sahir Ludhianvi’s famous songs from a Hindi film “Woh afsana jise anjam tak lana na ho mumkin, use ek khoobsurat more dekar chhorna hi achha” (It’s better to put an end to a story on a good note if it cannot be taken to a logical conclusion)” to convey the outcome before pronouncing the order.<br /><br />The FIR in the case was registered on January 22, 1990, whereas the letter of intent for supply of Bofors guns was issued by the government in favour of A B Bofors on March 14, 1986, the court noted.<br /><br />The order came as a big relief to the 70-year-old Italian businessman, mentioned as “Q” by the CMM in the 73-page verdict.<br /><br />Quattrocchi remained in the country between 1965 and 1993 and worked as a certified chartered accountant with Snamprogetti, an Italian multinational company. He has never appeared before any court here.<br /><br />The judge also cited a passage written by an author regarding the prevailing condition in a village in Amravati district in Maharashtra to say that the common man was not concerned at all about the high-profile cases.<br /><br />Advocate Ajay Aggarwal, who objected to CBI’s application in the court, said he would challenge the order in the Delhi High Court. <br /></p>
<p>Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vinod Yadav concurred with the CBI’s contention that continuing proceedings against Quattrocchi is a waste of money.<br /><br />The judge relied upon verdicts of the Delhi High Court discharging other accused in the case, besides rulings by Malaysian and Argentinian courts to refuse Quattrocchi’s extradition and free the man known to be close to the family of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. <br /><br />“The very question which stares us at our faces is whether it is justified for the Government of India (CBI) to continue to spend on the extradition of ‘Q’, which may or may not ultimately happen during his lifetime.<br /><br />“Can we allow this hard earned money of ‘aam aadmi’ (common man) of India to be spent on these type of proceedings which are not going to do any good to them, after almost 25 years of the so-called ‘Arm Deal,’ ” the court asked. “The answer would be a big ‘No,’ ” the judge declared.<br /><br />The court allowed the CBI prosecutor’s application filed under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code saying that “it is bona fide and in larger public interest.”<br /><br />HC findings<br /><br />The judge also referred to the notable findings of the Delhi High Court in which the CBI was rapped for spending about Rs 250 crore on probing the alleged kickback of Rs 64 crore.<br /><br />“Despite spending through its nose for about 21 years, the CBI has not been able to put forward legally sustainable evidence with regard to conspiracy in the matter. Further in the case of ‘Q’ (Quattrocchi), as against the alleged kickback of Rs 64 crore, the CBI by the year 2005 had already spent around Rs 250 crore on the investigation, which is sheer wastage of public money,” the judge said.<br /><br />He also recited Sahir Ludhianvi’s famous songs from a Hindi film “Woh afsana jise anjam tak lana na ho mumkin, use ek khoobsurat more dekar chhorna hi achha” (It’s better to put an end to a story on a good note if it cannot be taken to a logical conclusion)” to convey the outcome before pronouncing the order.<br /><br />The FIR in the case was registered on January 22, 1990, whereas the letter of intent for supply of Bofors guns was issued by the government in favour of A B Bofors on March 14, 1986, the court noted.<br /><br />The order came as a big relief to the 70-year-old Italian businessman, mentioned as “Q” by the CMM in the 73-page verdict.<br /><br />Quattrocchi remained in the country between 1965 and 1993 and worked as a certified chartered accountant with Snamprogetti, an Italian multinational company. He has never appeared before any court here.<br /><br />The judge also cited a passage written by an author regarding the prevailing condition in a village in Amravati district in Maharashtra to say that the common man was not concerned at all about the high-profile cases.<br /><br />Advocate Ajay Aggarwal, who objected to CBI’s application in the court, said he would challenge the order in the Delhi High Court. <br /></p>
