T r a n s p a r e n c y W o r l d w i d e

N e w D e l h i C h a p t e r

Exposé Exposing how Ashok Aggarwal, IRS officer under suspension threatened witnesses, tampered with investigation, forged documents and submitted them in Supreme Court to save himself from prosecution in a case of forgery and misconduct against him, and how some venal officers of the CBI helped Aggarwal by implicating an Approver & his wife, in five false cases to pressurize him to retract the u/s 164 IPC statement against Aggarwal.

Untold story – Black Deeds of Ashok Aggarwal, IRS

pg. 1

1. January 1998: Ashok Aggarwal investigated arms dealer Suresh Nanda during the course of

Barjatya FERA case & received huge gratification from Nanda. This being so as a witness Pankaj

(employee of Barjatya) had confessed to ED that 40 lacs cash for hawala on account of wire

transfer from Royalle Foundation Switzerland was collected from 4-Prithviraj Road residence of

Nanda.

2. January 1999: Since the inception of CBI case Ashok Aggarwal tried to exert political pressure.

The extent of Aggarwal’s political connections and the pressure he used in this case is evident

from the attached letters of Ram Jethmalani and affidavit of former Finance Minister of India

Jaswant Singh, and MP Amar Singh, alongwith a newsarticle titled, Moily (Law Minister) wants to

save Ashok Aggarwal at Annexure-A1

3. December 1999: Abhishek wrote a letter to the CBI that some politicians are trying to

pressurize him to retract his u/s 164 statement in Aggarwal’s case at the behest of Vincent

George. One of the 6 names in the said letter was that of former Minister Jagdish Tytler. The said

letter was leaked by the CBI and published by the India Today in the December 1999 issue. The

I/O of the said case was DSP Ramnish Geer of SIU-8 branch of the CBI.

Aggarwal went to the extent of hiring underworld / criminals due to which MHA provided round

the clock ‘Y’ category security cover of CRPF and Delhi Police for Abhishek from February 2000

onwards. A FIR was also registered by the Delhi Police for criminal intimidation. The Special Cell

traced the threat calls to Abu Salem gang in Dubai.

4. July 2005: On a petition of Aggarwal the High Court of Delhi ordered registration of a FIR

against officials of the CBI including the I/O Ramnish Geer, for alleged torture of Aggarwal

during CBI custody. The CBI got this order of single bench stayed by a double bench of High

Court thus the FIR wasn’t registered.

5. August 2006: Ramnish Geer the I/O of the case of the CBI was compromised by Aggarwal as

Aggarwal provided huge illegal gratification to him. Ramnish was instructed by Aggarwal to

silence Abhishek and ensure that he withdraws his u/s 164 IPC statement against Aggarwal.

With that gratification Ramnish bought a luxury flat in Sector-3 Dwarka on the 6th floor and

spent 1.25 crores on furnishing it.

6. January 2006: Aggarwal teamed up with Suresh Nanda and started planting forged and

fabricated emails about Abhishek’s alleged involvement in the Scorpene Submarines purchase &

Navy War Room Leak. Five coverstories were published by Outlook magazine between February

and June 2006. (Outlook magazine is owned by Rajan Raheja who is Nanda’s 50% partner in Sea

Rock Hotel Bombay).

7. February 2006: NDA held a major press conference (Jaswant Singh, LK Advani, George

Fernandes) and called the Scorpene/Navy Leak controversy Bofors-2. Abhishek sued LK Advani

for criminal defamation. Later in 2007 LK Advani realized (and admitted) that he was misled by

Ashok Aggarwal. Later Abhishek withdrew the criminal defamation case against LK Advani. (India

TV owner Rajat Sharma is a good friend of Aggarwal and Sharma was interrogated in March

2000 by the CBI in connection with Aggarwal case, thus Aggarwal’s proximity with BJP

leadership).

pg. 2

8. March 2006: Prashant Bhushan filed a PIL in Delhi High Court against the Govt. of India,

Abhishek and MoD. Due to this PIL, the Government and the CBI came under pressure and

registered a case u/s Official Secrets Act merely on the basis of Bhushan’s allegations.

Again DSP Ramnish Geer of CBI played a key role and had the investigation of the said case

marked to himself. During police custody Ramnish pressurized Abhishek to withdraw his 164 IPC

statement against Aggarwal and reach a compromise with him. Abhishek ended up spending 22

months in Tihar due to this false case.

9. March 2008: Delhi High Court exonerated Abhishek on the basis of CBI’s closure report in the

Scorpene Submarine case & as all the emails purportedly of Abhishek, which formed the basis of

this investigation turned out to be forged and fabricated. This was widely reported in the media.

10. May 2008: Abhishek was granted bail by Delhi High Court in the Navy War Room Leak case on

merits on the 31st of May 2008. Copy of the order of the Delhi High Court is attached herewith

as Annexure-B1

11. September 2008: Abhishek’s lawyer V.S.Rawat started blackmailing him and when Abhishek

refused to be intimidated, Rawat joined Aggarwal’s camp. Complaints against Rawat were sent

by Abhishek to Bar Council of India seeking his disbarment. Copy of the complaint is attached as

Annexure-B2

12. October 2008: CBI moved SLP for cancelation of bail granted by Delhi High Court to Abhishek

in the Navy War Room Leak case. Supreme Court dismissed the SLP in May 2009. The Navy War

Room Leak case trial remains stayed by the Supreme Court of India due to lack of evidence and

non-supply of documents to the accused persons by the prosecution. Copy of the Supreme

Court order upholding grant of bail order of Delhi High Court is attached as Annexure-B3

13. January 2009: V.S.Rawat deposed as a witness in the trial court against his former client

Abhishek, in favour of Aggarwal and tendered a statement tutored by Aggarwal stating that

Ashok Aggarwal is innocent and has been falsely been implicated by the CBI at the behest of

Abhishek. Copy of the deposition of Rawat is attached herewith as Annexure-B4

14. Sometime 2010: Rawat & Aggarwal forged an affidavit of Abhishek. This affidavit stated that

Abhishek is not interested in continuing as an Approver against Aggarwal and the case against

him was registered at the instructions of top officers of the CBI to frame Aggarwal. (During

judicial custody all court documents are stamped/countersigned by Jail officials – the said

affidavit is dated 12th October 2007 however isn’t countersigned or stamped by Tihar). Copy of

the forged affidavit is attached herewith as Annexure-B5

15. October 2011: Former Minister Jagdish Tytler and Abhishek’s erstwhile American lawyer

C.Edmonds Allen from New York defrauded Abhishek of Rs. 55 crores in a real estate transaction

of 100 acres of land earmarked for NOIDA township. Dispute pertaining to the development of

land ended up at the Delhi High Court before Mr. Justice G.S.Sistani. The court passed several

strictures about the role of Jagdish Tytler and appointed court Commissioners to seize evidence

from Tytler in connection with the aforesaid Real-Estate deal. Copy of the orders of Justice

Sistani regarding Jagdish Tytler is attached herewith as Annexure-B6

16. December 2011: In order to seek revenge Jagdish Tytler conspired with Allen and introduced

him to Aggarwal who forged and fabricated Abhishek’s emails once again. Allen sent letters

pg. 3

from New York to CBI, Enforcement Directorate, CVC, MoD, PMO, MHA due to which Abhishek

got embroiled in another controversy.

17. February 2012: At Aggarwal’s instructions his lawyer Ram Jethmalani wrote a letter to Director

Enforcement asking for a probe in Abhishek’s alleged foreign accounts. Jethmalani categorically

mentioned in the letter Allen would be keen to visit India to provide ocular and documentary

evidence. The Enforcement Directorate forwarded these documents to CBI anti-corruption

branch. (Till date Allen has not visited India despite CBI / ED repeated requests). Copy of Ram

Jethmalani’s letter attached as Annexure-C1

18. March 2012: Pulok Chatterjee Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister was approached by

Vincent George to ensure that Allen’s complaints are converted into FIRs of CBI to teach

Abhishek a lesson. George and Chatterjee are friends for a decade, from the time when

Chatterjee was the Secretary of Rajiv Gandhi Foundation.

Abhishek had provided evidence against Vincent George in 1999 during investigation in

Aggarwal’s corruption case by the CBI. Thus, George carried a grudge against Abhishek for over

a decade. Chatterjee acting on George’s request overzealously forwarded all the complaints of

Allen without application of mind to the CBI. Thereafter, SSP CBI Ramish Geer acting at the

behest of Aggarwal, and in order to please his masters, ensured that the investigation is marked

to his branch (AC-1 unit) of the CBI.

19. April 2012: Aggarwal got in touch with his friend from IRS days Arvind Kejriwal (and his

associate Prashant Bhushan) who held a major press conference on 26th April 2012 in Delhi to

release 130 pages of forged emails and fabricated documents purportedly being Abhishek’s.

Abhishek had a heart attack the same day and angioplasty was conducted at Escorts Heart

Institute on 26th April 2012. Three of the pages of the documents released by them contain

email exchanges between Allen and Bhushan wherein both are conspiring to fix Abhishek cases

of Enforcement and CBI are attached herewith as Annexure-C2

20. May 2012: Sunday Guardian newspaper owned 74% by Ram Jethmalani launched vicious front

page attacks against Abhishek - based on interviews, documents and forged emails provided by

Allen. The newspaper’s Chief Editor & partner of Ram Jethmalani is MJ Akbar who holds 26%

equity.

21. June 2012: Abhishek filed a criminal complaint for forgery, fabrication, fraud, cheating against

C.Edmonds Allen and his partner Arjun Arora, in Saket District Courts on 2nd June 2012 and

annexed all the emails/documents circulated by Arvind Kejriwal. Copy of the relevant court order

sheet is attached herewith as Annexure-C3

Just after this petition was filed, 4th of June onwards Headlines Today a prominent newschannel

owned by India Today whose the then editor was MJ Akbar aired live interviews of C.Edmonds

Allen from New York and repeated those interviews in a nonstop loop for 3 days.

The Finance Ministry sent a detailed pointwise reply to PMO in regards the allegations of Arvind

Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan. Copy of the letter and its’ enclosures are attached herewith

collectively as Annexure-C4

Even though the Finance Ministry provided a clean chit to Abhishek, however, the CBI under

advice from Ramnish Geer registered a case of Prevention of Corruption Act on 5th of June 2012

pg. 4

on false information supplied by Allen and arrested Abhishek and his newlywed European wife

(married on 3rd June 2012) Anca-Maria on the 8th June 2012.

Allen misled the CBI with the help of SSP Ramnish Geer that the payment of US$ 530,000 which

was received by his company Ganton Limited from Rheinmetal Air Defense (Switzerland) in

February 2011 was for payment of bribes to Indian Army officials at the behest of Abhishek,

whereas in reality, said payment was for providing Consultancy Services by Ganton Limited to

Rheinmetal for an ongoing project. Copy attached Annexure-D1

Abhishek’s wife Anca was merely a Director & salaried employee in the Indian subsidiary of

Ganton Limited, called Ganton India Private Limited, Delhi which was setup as M.R.O.

(Maintainence and Repair Organization) in India for large technology projects. The other

directors being C.Edmonds Allen, Arjun Arora and Vikki Choudhry.

Abhishek or his wife Anca did not have any shareholding or control in Ganton Limited as 100%

shares of Ganton Ltd USA are owned by Allen as per his own admission and documents/emails,

attached as Annexure-D2

22. August 2012: Aggarwal and Allen continued to manufacture and plant evidence at CBI against

Abhishek and Anca through Pulok Chatterjee PMO and Ramnish Geer SSP CBI.

CBI in order to harass the couple, registered a 2nd case u/s PC Act and arrested the couple from

court as soon as they got bail in the first case on 8th of August 2012.

The same tactic was used by the Enforcement Directorate to arrest the couple in a PMLA case

and as soon as the statutory period of 60 days for conclusion of investigation was completing,

the CBI once against arrested the couple in the third case u/s OSA act on 4th of September 2012.

23. Copies of the three FIRs of CBI and one of Enforcement Directorate are attached herewith as

Annexure-D3

24. September 2012: Aggarwal then compromised Abhishek’s erstwhile friend - a small time

businessman who runs a cable company in Delhi ‘Home Cable Network’ by the name of Vikki

Choudhry, who was paid handsomely to become a planted witness against Abhishek and his

wife Anca in the OSA case. During CBI custody remand in OSA case 4th to 14th September 2012,

Vikki Choudhry threatened Abhishek in presence of CBI officials during confrontation of having

him killed in Tihar Jail. A complaint was filed by Abhishek before the Director CBI once he was

back in judicial custody at Tihar. CBI directed DG Prisons to ensure Abhishek’s safety and

security in October 2012 vide an official letter. Munna Bajrangi (gangster of Dawood Ibrahim) is

close to Vikki Choudhry. Copy of the above mentioned letter is attached as Annexure-D4

Meanwhile, Ramnish Geer in order to ensure further incarceration of Anca and Abhishek, filed a

complaint in his own name with the CBI accusing Abhishek for forging a letter with his signaturs

allegedly sent by Abhishek to Allen purportedly issued by Ramnish in 2009. Ramnish suppressed

the fact that Abhishek had filed a criminal complaint for forgery and fabrication against Allen in

June 2012 with a Delhi court about forgery of the very same letter in question, and had

intimated the CBI about it. Thus in order to prove their innocence Abhishek and Anca moved an

application in concerned court offering to surrender/court arrest in this case as well, in order to

be remanded to CBI custody so that they may answer all queries of the CBI to prove their

innocence. However, the CBI turned down the plea of the couple stating that at the moment

pg. 5

they do not require the custody of the couple. This was again a ploy to harass the couple and to

keep a FIR pending in order to arrest them as soon as they received bail in the OSA case. Copy

of the relevant court order is attached at Annexure-E1

25. November 2012: Aggarwal filed the aforementioned forged affidavit of Abhishek in the

Supreme Court seeking that the Approver status of Abhishek be set-aside. Alongwith the forged

affidavit Aggarwal also filed an affidavit of Rawat which is in his favour. Copy of the forged

affidavit purportedly of Abhishek, and another affidavit of Rawat in favour of Aggarwal are

attached herewith as Annexure-E2

CBI acting on the advice of Ramnish Geer SSP filed a half-baked chargesheet in the OSA case on

the 90th day in the concerned court against Abhishek, Anca and others, however in order to

falsely prosecute both of them, the I/O of the case Inspector Rajesh Solanki and the Supdt of

Police Mrs Meenu Choudhry manipulated the contents of the sanction received from the MHA

to file this OSA charge sheet.

It is to be noted that sanction was received on 29.11.2012 to file a final report/chargesheet

against Abhishek Verma, Anca Verma, Wg Cdr Koka Rao and Ganton Limited (USA). However,

the charge sheet filed the next day, Ganton Limited (USA) was replaced with Ganton India

Pvt Ltd.

This manipulation was done overnight by venal officers of the CBI to protect Allen from

prosecution as he owns 100% shareholding of Ganton Limited USA, whereas Ganton India has

Anca and three others as Directors on board.

Copy of the sanction letter of MHA and relevant pages of the charge sheet reflecting this fraud

perpetrated by the CBI officers are attached herewith as Annexure-E3

Another surprising fact that came to light, post submission of the chargesheet that Allen who

was supposed to be the ‘star witness’ as per CBI’s press briefings was not even cited as a witness

in the said chargesheet, instead Allen’s statement recorded in New York by the Enforcement

Directorate u/s PMLA was annexed in this chargesheet u/s OSA. It is settled law that statements

recorded under a special act cannot be used in another case filed under another special act of

India. Furthermore, the I/O of PMLA case was cited as a witness instead of Allen to prove the

statement of Allen recorded in New York. It is nothing but hearsay in law and inadmissible in

judicial proceedings and it tantamounts to wasting precious time of Courts.

The charge sheet itself is nothing but mockery of law. One of the paragraphs on page 10 of the

chargesheet states that, “copies of some such documents came to Allen by email/skype email

from Abhishek Verma OR Anca.”

Hilariously, CBI the premier investigation agency of India is not sure if the alleged secret

documents which Allen claimed to have received were from Anca “OR” Abhishek.

The CBI has claimed privilege on these 8 (eight) secret documents and have not annexed the

same to the charge sheet. Anca and Abhishek or their lawyers, have no idea what they are being

prosecuted for as they haven’t been provided a copy nor even sighted them. This act of the CBI

goes against the principals of natural justice where the rights of the accused are being taken

away and they are being tried without providing them with copies of evidence – under the garb

of national security. The applications filed by Anca and Abhishek u/s 207 Cr.PC for providing

pg. 6

copies of these documents were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Tis Hazari

Court, due to strong opposition from the CBI.

None of the alleged secret documents as per the Ministry of Defence were recovered from the

possession of Abhishek and Anca nor from any of their establishments. These documents seem

to be of commercial nature as it appears from the respective titles in the chargesheet & these

could not have any bearing on national security nor did these have any strategic information

regarding formations of the Indian military).

Moreover the person (Allen) who claimed to have received these documents has neither been

cited as a witness, nor named as an accused nor has been made an approver in this case. This

being so as Allen had clandestinely planted these documents as advised by Ramnish Geer and

Ashok Aggarwal, and sent them to the CBI through his letters from New York. The CBI and Allen

both knew that Allen won’t be able to stand cross examination during the test of trial in the

witness box. Thus it was best to exclude him from the chargesheet.

In fact, Allen should have been prosecuted u/s OSA since he possessed these secret documents

and transmitted them to the press and others in India (such as Aggarwal, Arvind Kejriwal,

Prashant Bhushan etc). Moreover Ganton Limited USA owned by Allen was named as an accused

by the MHA as per the sanction received however, CBI officers (Supdt Police Mrs. Meenu

Choudhry and I/O Inspector Rajesh Solanki) under instructions from Ramnish Geer SSP CBI,

surreptitiously changed it to read as Ganton India Pvt Ltd to save Allen.

26. December 2012: Abhishek complained to the CBI & the Delhi Police Commissioner enclosing a

copy of the forged affidavit (which Abhishek received from Supreme Court registry as he is a

party to the SLP) demanding the Aggarwal bail be cancelled since he tampered with the

evidence and tried to influence the proceedings of court. Abhishek also asked for registration of

a FIR to book Aggarwal and Rawat in a case of forgery & tampering with evidence and

threatening the approver/witness. The FIR is yet to be registered. Copy of Abhishek’s letter to

Delhi Police and CBI seeking action against Aggarwal and Rawat with a prayer for registration of

FIR is attached herewith as Annexure-F1

27. January 2013: Rawat, filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court seeking setting up a S.I.T. to

monitor all the cases against Abhishek and Anca. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the Chief

Justice of India Mr.Justice Altmas Kabir in the end of January 2013. Copy of the newsitem

published in this regard is attached herewith as Annexure-F2

Abhishek wrote detailed complaints to the Prime Minister of India, Home Minister and Director

CBI exposing the nexus between Ramnish, Aggarwal, Allen and others – seeking an independent

investigation and enquiry into the allegations. The PMO acknowledged the complaint. The

Home Minister of India forwarded the complaint to DoPT with his comments in regards an

inquiry. The DoPT on 4th of June 2013 forwarded the complaint to the Secretary CVC for

immediate necessary action and to investigate the complaint. Copies of all these documents are

contained collectively in Annexure-F3

28. February 2013: Abhishek filed a petition for cancelation of Aggarwal’s bail before the trial court

(CBI Special Judge) which is pending. Grounds: Forgery, tampering with evidence and

influencing court proceedings, threatening witness/approver. Copy attached as Annexure-F4

pg. 7

Vikki Choudhry at the advice of Aggarwal organized through Prityush Kanth Business Editor,

Times of India / Times Now TV channel and planted stories cum interviews of Allen who alleged

involvement of Abhishek in the Agusta VVIP helicopters scam and flashed once again fabricated

emails between Abhishek and Agusta Westland helicopter company Italy. However, the Govt

and the CBI saw through their motives and one sided stories. After scrutinizing the evidence

provided by Allen – the CBI realized that these documents were forged and fabricated, therefore

did not falsely implicate yet again Abhishek and Anca in the Agusta helicopters case. Copies of

articles enclosed herewith in which it is categorically stated that information regarding VVIP

helicopters scandal with Abhishek’s involvement was received from Allen are attached

collectively as Annexure-G1

Abhishek’s lawyers sent a strong legal notice to Times of India for having published defamatory

and fabricated material in their newspapers and on their newschannel. Copy of the legal notice

is attached as Annexure-G2

Aggarwal and Vikki Choudhry have hired gangster Munna Bajrangi to assassinate / cause

physical injury to Anca and Abhishek in Tihar Prisons. In order to obtain information about

Abhishek’s security arrangements in jail, Munna Bajrangi filed a RTI before the Tihar authorities

seeking information about him which was declined by Tihar Jail CPIO u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.

The SHO Lodhi Road police station was informed by Jail-4 officials to register a case of

threatening and conspiracy against Vikki Choudhry, Ashok Aggarwal and Munna Bajrangi. FIR is

yet to be registered and Abhishek has filed a petition in the concerned court u/s 156(3) Cr.PC for

registration of FIR by the police. Copy of the letter written by Tihar Jail officials to SHO Lodhi

Road is attached herewith as Annexure-G3

29. March 2013: Vikki Choudhry filed a petition u/s 156(3) in the court of a CBI Special Judge

Patiala House Mrs. Swarankanta Sharma seeking registration of yet another case against

Abhishek, Anca and associates on the false evidence tendered by C.Edmonds Allen in regards PC

Act violations by a company GT Telecom Pvt Ltd (in which Vikki and Tytler’s son were directors -

however neither Abhishek nor Anca were Directors nor officers of the company). The CBI Judge

was misled and she allowed Vikki’s petition with directions to the CBI to register a FIR against

Abhishek, Anca and others. However, CBI filed an Appeal in the Delhi High Court seeking that

the order of the CBI Judge be quashed as it is an illegal order since all the aspects of the so

called evidence tendered by Allen were examined and no new facts were discovered that

warranted registration of another FIR against Abhishek, Anca and others. Furthermore, the CBI

raised questions on law whether CBI Judge has powers to direct the CBI to register cases for

investigation since that power is vested with the High Court, Supreme Court, State and Central

Governments under the Special Police Establishment Act that governs the CBI.

Abhishek also complained to Director CBI vide his letter dated March 3, 2013 that Ramnish Geer

SSP CBI has been indulging in leaking information about Abhishek & Anca’s cases and personal

life to the press. A petition was also filed in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to

restrain the CBI from leaking unauthorized information to the press. The CMM Tis Hazari was

pleased to issue a restraining order in favour of Abhishek & his wife Anca with directions to the

CBI not to indulge in such unethical practices. Copy of the said restraining order is attached

herewith as Annexure-G4

pg. 8

Abhishek sent a letter from jail to I/O of CBI in the case of alleged forgery of Raminsh’s letter to

Mrs.Seema Pahuja Inspector, present the facts once again in relation to the above case and

implored her to arrest him and his wife and seek their police custody remand in order for them

to answer all the queries of the CBI and to prove their innocence. However, no action or reply

was received from the I/O Mrs.Pahuja. Good intentions and conduct of Abhishek and Anca is

proved beyond doubt from their requests to court and the I/O whereby both have repeatedly

implored the CBI to arrest them and subject them to interrogation, however, the CBI is avoiding

the same. Copy of the letter is attached herewith as Annexure-H1

30. April 2013: Allen hit below the belt and sent some obscene photos and greeting cards with

sarcastic comments and threats to Abhishek at his Tihar Jail address, due to which Abhishek

complained to the CBI and wrote yet another letter to the Director CBI on 5th April 2005. Copy

attached Annexure-H2

31. May 2013: Abhishek wrote another reminder letter to the Director CBI on May 14, 2013 seeking

replies to his earlier letters and raising 13 questions which actually put CBI in a tight spot in

regards the false cases against him and his wife. He also exposed the nexus of PMO’s Pulok

Chatterjee, Ashok Aggarwal and Vincent George in this letter to the Director. Copy of this letter

is attached herewith, Annexure-H3

32. June 2013: Ramnish Geer SSP CBI brazenly without authorization from his superiors invaded

privacy of Abhishek and Anca incarcerated in Jail, by sending a Sub-Inspector Rajesh Ranjan CBI

(AC-1 branch) to snoop around and harass visitors to Tihar coaxing them to provide information

about the couple. As soon as Abhishek got to know about it from reliable sources, he

complained to the Director CBI vide his letter sent from Jail on 18th of June 2013. As the

snooping activity was unauthorized, Ramnish Geer and the sub-inspector concerned were pulled

up for exceeding their brief and illegal activities and spying was stopped. Copy of the complaint

to Director CBI is attached herewith, Annexure-H4

Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances (DoPT) wrote to Abhishek on 4th of June 2013,

confirming that they had received his complaint dated 23.01.2013 from the Home Minister of

India vide diary number 1213/MOS(PP) dated 10.05.2013 and the same was forwarded to

Secretary CVC for necessary action in regards Ramnish Geer, Ashok Aggarwal & others. A copy

of the letter of DoPT is attached herewith as Annexure-H5

33. July 2013: Abhishek wrote to Director CBI vide his letter of July 1, 2013 exposing the connection

between C.Edmonds Allen, Ramnish Geer and Ashok Aggarwal with documentary proof. On the

28th of June 2013, C.Edmonds Allen posted a tweet on Abhishek’s twitter account maintained by

his lawyer & staff. The tweet was about Ramnish and Ashok Aggarwal. 3 hours later, Ramnish

who was advised by Allen, added Abhishek on his twitter account as a “follower” and read the

tweet. An automatic notification about this activity was generated by twitter and emailed to

Abhishek’s gmail address read by his lawyer/staff. The complaint to Director CBI sought

registration of a FIR against Ramnish Geer for misconduct u/s Prevention of Corruption Act

13(1)(d) and for abuse of power in order that Allen, Aggarwal and others gain pecuniary

advantage by his acts. A copy of this complaint is attached herewith as Annexure-H6

Allen started Stalking Anca lodged in Tihar Jail and she received by post through her jail’s mail

section, an envelope on 1st of July 2013 sent by Allen from New York, containing personal

photos which were hacked from her Facebook account. Allen also posted one obscenely

pg. 9

morphed photo of Anca on twitter profile of Abhishek which was printed and provided to her by

the lawyers/staff. Anca complained through proper channels of her jail on the 15th July 2013 to

the Hari Nagar police station Delhi for registration of FIR u/s Stalking, Sexual harassment and

conspiracy against Allen, Arjun Arora, Vikki Choudhry & Ashok Aggarwal as these acts were

committed in connivance of all these persons. Furthermore the names of Allen, Arora, Choudhry

and Aggarwal are mentioned on the offensive literature. Copy of the complaint to Police is

attached herewith as Annexure-I1

****

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--AA11

Assistant

Text Box

Ram Jethmalani's letter to MJ Akbar

Assistant

Text Box

Jaswant Singh's affidavit in favour of Ashok Aggarwal

THURSDAY | FEBRUARY 07, 2013

Home News Investigation Analysis Business Sports Search...

Guardian20 Artbeat Bookbeat Young&Restless Technologic MasalaArt ReviewZone ViewAskew Columnists PictureEssay

Moily wants to bail out tainted officer YATISH YADAV New Delhi | 3rd Jul 2011

he Ministry of Law headed by Veerappa Moily has advised the Ministry of Finance that it should withdraw the sanction it has given to the CBI to prosecute Ashok Agarwal, a former deputy director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a corruption case. The Ministry of Finance had sanctioned the prosecution of Agarwal after he was charge-sheeted by the CBI in 2002 for having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and for hatching a criminal conspiracy to implicate a Delhi-based jeweller, Subhash Barjatya, in a Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) case. Agarwal, who is an Indian Revenue Service officer, had unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the sanction in a lower court as well as in the high court. Subsequently, he approached the Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.

Responding to a VIP reference by former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh, the Ministry of Law in its advice to the Ministry of Finance has said that the sanction for the prosecution of Agarwal is invalid.

The Ministry has said that it received a reference (VIP) from Singh dated 01/02/2011 stating that Agarwal's case was one of gross injustice and that the officer has been suffering for more than a decade on account of "two frivolous complaints" filed by the CBI out of personal grudge against him.

The sanction for his prosecution was obtained by the CBI after it investigated both cases, but the Ministry of Law differs on this with the CBI.

"Sanction orders dated 21/06/2002 and 26/11/2002 had been issued without proper application of mind as all the relevant and relied upon documents, which admittedly had not been supplied by the CBI to the sanctioning authority," says the law ministry note in response to Amar Singh's reference letter. Despite several attempts, Law Minister Veerappa Moily could not be reached for comments.

Meanwhile, the CBI maintains that all the relevant documents were shown to the Ministry of Finance and there was due application of mind before sanction was granted in 2002.

Facebook

Twitter

Share

VIEWED SEARCHED COMMENTED

Ghaziabad builder cheats 500 buyers

Facebook tells Rahul bitter truth to his face

Some questions for Congress’ Prince Charming

Mizoram’s 25 years are more than the blink of an eye

The Mao Zedong of Gujarat

Like 2

Page 1 of 3Moily wants to bail out tainted officer

2/ 8/ 2013http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/moily-wants-to-bail-out-tainted-officer

Even though the nodal Ministry of Finance is not having a rethink on the issue, the Ministry of Law says that the sanction orders suffer from legal infirmity and are invalid; hence, in the interest of justice, the administrative department may take appropriate action in the matter.

The Ministry of Law is also of the view that sanction order in 2002 had been issued based on the SP's (superintendent of police) report and without going through all the relevant documents as contained in the orders of the high court dated 09/04/02. "It may be said that the sanction order contains an incorrect declaration that the sanction had been accorded after considering and examining the relied upon material including the statements of witnesses."

The CBI had charged that Agarwal amassed nearly Rs 12.04 cr, which was laundered through several companies owned by his immediate family members. In another case, Agarwal, as a deputy director of ED, allegedly hatched a conspiracy with one Abhishek Verma to create a forged Swiss bank debit advice. He allegedly sent it to Subhash Barjatya's office, which was later raided by ED sleuths, to implicate him in a FERA case. Both cases are being pursued by the CBI, but Agarwal tried to derail the trial by filing several writ petitions against CBI officers, sources alleged.

Agarwal said that the sanctioning authority had not seen the documents while granting sanctions. During the course of the interrogation, Abhishek Verma said before the magistrate that he entered into a conspiracy with Agarwal and a Swiss bank debit advice was sent from his fax machine. Consequently, ED officers, acting under directions from Agarwal raided the office of Barjatya in Maurya Sheraton hotel in New Delhi. Agarwal was arrested from Hotel Taj, Saharanpur where he was staying under a false name to evade the CBI.

0 comments

What's this?RECOMMENDED CONTENTALSO ON THE SUNDAY GUARDIAN

Tacos, Tragedy and Testosterone: Watch Episode 1 of Bro-Dependent Comedy Central

He Said/She Said: When You're Both Work-from-Home Parents Citi Women & Co.

The Biggest Celebrity Engagement Rings of All Time Style Bistro

A partial but important depiction of loss and exile 3 comments

Khaleda shoots herself in the foot 1 comment

A columnist’s bail anticipated 1 comment

Leave a message...

Discussion Community #Share

Powered by Disqus Comment feedr Subscribe via email m

0★

Like 2

Page 2 of 3Moily wants to bail out tainted officer

2/ 8/ 2013http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/moily-wants-to-bail-out-tainted-officer

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--BB11

Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi BAIL APPLN. No. 2546 of 2007 Reserved on May 8, 2008 Date of decision: May 30, 2008 ABHISHEK VERMA... Petitioner! Through: Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate, Mr. Amit Sibal, with Mr. P.K. Dubey and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia Advocates. Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.... Respondent Through : Ms. Mukta Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel. AND CRL M.C. 4231 of 2006 ABHISHEK VERMA... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.K. Dubey and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocates. Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.... Respondent Through: Ms. Mukta Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest

Page 2 of 15

JUDGMENT 30.05.2008 :DR. S.MURALIDHAR 1.1 These two petitions arise out of the same set of facts and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment. The prayer in Bail Appln. No. 2546 of 2007 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is for the grant of bail to the petitioner who is facing trial in complaint case RC No. 2(A)/2006/ACU-IX/CBI, New Delhi under Section 3, 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) and the Criminal Case instituted upon the charge sheet filed under Sections 409/109 read with Section 120 B IPC. 1.2 Crl.M.C.No. 4231 of 2006 filed under Section 482 CrPC challenges the order dated 22nd July 2006 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) remanding the petitioner to police custody till 1st August 2006. By a subsequent application the prayer was amended to include a challenge to all subsequent proceedings as well. 2.1 According to the prosecution in May 2005 a court of enquiry conducted by the Air Force Headquarters had established that Wing Commander S.L. Surve had obtained a pen drive containing information pertaining to the Directorate of Naval Operation (DNO) from Kulbhushan Parashar, a former officer of the Indian Navy. A Board of Enquiry was also conducted by the Naval Headquarters and three Naval Officers Kashyap Kumar, Vijender Rana and Vinod Kumar Jha were indicted for causing classified naval information to be leaked to unauthorised persons thus jeopardizing the security of the State. In the Air Force s Court of Enquiry it came to light that Kulbhushan Parashar was associated with a company named Atlas. 3. On the basis of the information received from the Ministry of Defence, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered FIR No. RC 2A/2006/ACU IX on 20th March, 2006 under Section 120 B read with Section 3(1) (c) and Section 5 OSA against Kulbhushan Parashar, Ravi Shankaran, S.K.Kohli, Mukesh Bajaj, Ms. Rajrani Jaiswal, Sambhajee L. Surve, Virender Rana, Kashyap Kumar and Vijender Kumar Jha. It is stated that the CBI arrested the aforementioned accused persons except Ravi Shankaran. On 23rd June, 2006 a raid was conducted on the house of the petitioner. No incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the petitioner or recovered at his instance. On 1st July, 2006 a Criminal Complaint was lodged against Kulbhushan Parashar, Ravi Shankaran, S.L. Surve, Virender Rana and Vinod Kumar Jha in RC No. 2(A)/2006/ACU-IX/CBI, New Delhi under Sections 3 and 5 OSA read with Section 120 B IPC. On that very day, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Delhi by an order dated 1st July, 2006 took cognizance of the offences under the aforementioned provisions. On 10th July 2006 the learned CMM again passed an order taking cognizance of the same offences. 4. The allegation in the charge sheet was that Kulbhushan Parashar, who was earlier working with Ravi Shankaran at Mumbai, started working with Abhishek Verma after he moved to Delhi. It is stated that Kulbhushan Prashar was the Vice President of Atlas Defence System (ADS) and was interacting with the Ministry of Defence for various products including 2 MB PCM MUX multiplexing equipment for simultaneous transmission of subject, telegraph messages and data over point to point

Page 3 of 15

communication, SESD (Subscriber End Secrecy Device) and TETRA (Terrestrial Trunk Radio) and Aerostat. It is stated that there was evidence on record to show that although the bids were made by M/s. Atlas Telecom Network (ATN) and ADS, Mr. Abhishek Verma was also associated with these companies and was monitoring the bids. This inference is drawn on the basis that Abhishek Verma was on the board of two other companies, viz., Atlas Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. (AIIPL) and One World Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. (OWIIPL). The address of both these companies was 407 Tower B, Global Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon. This address was also used by ADS and ATN. According to the CBI, ADS was a division of the Atlas Group which provided turnkey high speed aeronautical satellite communications solutions from highly secure military applications. 5. The other link which is sought to be established against the petitioner is a statement of one Ravi Chauhan, an employee and senior functionary in one of the Atlas Group of companies. In it Chauhan is stated to have claimed that no official transaction was made by the group employees without the consent of Abhishek Verma. The group was not doing too well but there was an inflow of foreign funds into the Atlas Group company accounts and one of the authorized signatories of these accounts was the petitioner. It was stated that there was evidence to show that Rs.10 lakhs was paid by Abhishek Verma to Ravi Shankaran from the accounts of OWIIPL. 6. The case of the CBI is that there was a close association between Kashyap Kumar, Abhishek Verma and Ravi Shankaran. A jet flash pen drive recovered from Vijender Rana, an officer posted in the Naval War Room, indicated the commission paid to Abhishek Verma by Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran in Mumbai and Delhi as between 0.5% to 1.5% for procurement of equipments. Documents seized from the residential premises of Kulbhushan Parashar contained official correspondence between the Atlas Group of Companies with the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence relating to the supply of equipment for the Indian army for which ATN was one of the bidders. Kulbhushan Parashar is stated to have purchased pen drives and distributed it to the other officers including Vijender Rana and S.L. Survey. Therefore Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran had an active role in collecting and passing on of 6867 pages of classified defence information from the computers of the Naval War Room of Indian Air Force and this is evident from the pen drives recovered from Vijender Rana and S.L. Surve. 7. According to the CBI, classified information contained in the two pen drives recovered from Vijender Rana pertained, inter alia, to the Network Centric Operations of the Indian Navy, to PECHORA (a missile used in Indian Air Force, which is a surface to air missile, procured from Russia and which is an important part of the Indian Air Defence System), to the Joint Service Study Group (JSSG) on Ground Based Air Defence Weapon System (GBADWS) a strategically sensitive study being taken up as a joint venture by the three wings of the Defence i.e. Air Force, Navy and the Army to identify their vulnerable areas (VAs) and vulnerable points (VPs), and vital information pertaining to Sir Creek Area. It is further submitted that 369 Portable Document Format (PDF) format and Tagged image file format (TIFF) pages which contained documents being copies of the official notings of the various offices of the Ministry of Defence and other defence documents were also recovered. One of the letters linked the pen drives recovered from Vijender Rana to Kulbhushan Prashar.

Page 4 of 15

8. The document in which the name A. Verma figures and on which considerable reliance has been placed by the prosecution is described in para 14.2.4 of the complaint which reads as under: 14.2.4 One of these PDF documents recovered from the Jet Flash Pen drive of Vijender Rana is a letter of Shri G.Mukhopadhaya, JS (Planning and International Cooperation) PIC dated 5.1.2005 along with enclosures, which is a proposal of a firm called EADS (European Aeronautical and Defence Systems) to set up small/medium local area voice and data network to assess ongoing relief operations in Andaman and Nicobar. This letter addressed to Brigadier R.K. Yadav, Military Attaché, High Commission of India, and London and was sent to MEA New Delhi and JS PIC, Ministry of Defence by Shri Satyabrata Pal, Deputy High Commissioner, High Commission of India, London. In the right hand top corner of this document is written Kind Attn: A Verma . The office copies of this letter have been collected from the International Cooperation Section of Ministry of Defence as well as from integrated Defence Staff Headquarters which reveals that this document, which was addressed to CISC (Chief of Integrated Staff Committee) was further marked to DGDIA (Tech Int), (Director General Defence Intelligence Agency), DCIDS (Ops), (Deputy Chief Integrated Defence Staff Operations), DACIDSC C412, (Deputy Assistant Chief Integrated Defence Staff Command Control Communication Computer Intelligence and Interoperability), DACIDS (ISWSIT), (Deputy Chief Integrated Defence Staff (Information Warfare and Information Technology)) and SAG (System Analysis Group). These markings have been erased in the scanned copy recovered from the Jet Flash Pen Drive with the mala fide intention to conceal the identity of the compromised unidentified person in the CISC. This document was not addressed to any private person but was for official use only. Evidence has come on record that in CISC, this matter was dealt with in file no. IDS/Ops/C412/32037, which is a file classified as secret and deals with matters related to Andaman and Nicobar command of Indian Army which is of high strategic importance from view point of National Security. The fact that this document has been sent to Abhishek Verma and has been recovered from this Jet Flash Pen drive clearly proves that Abhishek Verma was having access to such official records of Defence Ministry having a bearing on the safety and security of the nation, through some compromised officers, who were paid/ gratified for providing information illegally to him directly and also to Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran. Abhishek Verma s interests in the Telecom equipments because of Atlas Interactive which became joint venture with Atlas Telecom, and earlier only with Atlas Telecom already stands proved. Abhishek Verma through his Atlas Group of companies has been bidding for Telecommunication equipments which shows the likely reason and intention of collecting any such information related to supply of equipment related to telecommunication for the furtherance of his business interest at the earliest, and in the process, national security was compromised. 9. The other plea was that Kulbhushan Parashar was closely associated with and in working for Abhishek Verma and that the latter was connected with and in control of all that was done by Kulbhushan Parashar. The conclusions in the complaint as set in para 16 thereof reads as under: 16. Therefore, the aforesaid facts prima facie establish that:

(i) Abhishek Verma was closely associated with Atlas Group of Companies and also those which existed in India in the name and style Atlas Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s One World Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. which had close links with foreign registered sister concerns M/s Atlas Defence Systems, Atlas Telecom Pvt. Ltd. U.K.

Page 5 of 15

(ii) Abhishek Verma is very closely associated with Kulbhushan Parashar, who provided at least 8 Pen Drives to the compromised defence officers to copy and trade off sensitive information of interest to the group in exchange for gratification.

(iii) Abhishek Verma was privy to the sensitive defence information at least on one of these Pen Drives which has implications for National Security. This information includes the Network Centric Operations Project of the Navy, on the strategic Sir Creek and on the Pak War Game. He was also privy to the 369 pages of PDF and TIFF files which are about many sensitive procurements of the Ministry of Defence. One of these documents is an internal letter of the Ministry of Defence from a secret file which has been unauthorisedly obtained by Abhishek Verma.

(iv) Abhishek Verma is very closely associated with Ravi Shankaran, who has received such critical information on national security from the compromised defence officers namely Vijender Rana, through the Jet Flash Pen Drive and e- mails, and who was also in touch with foreign companies.

(v) Abhishek Verma is very closely associated with foreigners linked to the Atlas Group of Companies and others and also had financial transactions with them.

(vi) Abhishek Verma has received pecuniary benefits from these foreign companies in the form of cash remittances. These companies had interest in various defence procurement by the Government of India.

10. Soon after his arrest Abhishek Verma filed Crl. M.C. No. 4231 of 2006 in this Court challenging the order dated 22nd July 2006 passed by the learned CMM remanding him to police custody and seeking an order directing the petitioner s release forthwith. On this petition no interim order was passed. On 17th August, 2006 the petitioner was permitted to amend the prayer clause seeking quashing of the order dated 22nd July, 2006 and all orders/proceedings consequent thereto in view of the subsequent developments 11. On 18th and 19th October 2006 a complaint under Section 13 OSA and a supplementary charge sheet were filed against Abhishek Verma. The learned CMM took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. On 13th April 2007 the application for bail was rejected by the learned CMM. The petitioner s subsequent application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 29th May 2007. The petitioner has been in custody since 21st July, 2006. 12. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, first addressed arguments in relation to Crl. Misc. Case No. 3241 of 2006 where the challenge is to the order dated 22nd July, 2006 passed by the learned CMM remanding the petitioner to police custody till 1st August, 2006. Mr. Luthra submitted that notwithstanding the developments that have taken place since the filing of the separate complaint and supplementary charge sheet against the petitioner on 18th and 19th October, 2006 he would still urge that the procedure adopted by the prosecution in regard to the petitioner in this case was in violation of the various provisions of the CrPC and therefore that is an additional factor that should be taken into account while considering the petitioner s prayer for release on bail.

Page 6 of 15

13. The submission is that the procedural infraction is incurable in as much as under Section 13 OSA cognizance can be taken of the offence only upon a complaint (as defined under Section 2 (d) CrPC) and not on a police report as defined under Section 2 (r) CrPC. In the present case the complaint had already been filed on 1st July 2006 and the learned CMM had taken cognizance on that very date. It is stated that on the same date the CBI moved a misconceived application under Section 210 CrPC on which notice was issued to the Investigating Officer in the FIR that had already been filed on 20th March, 2006 for filing a status report/charge sheet. The submission is that once process has been issued to the accused, the procedure that ought to be followed was that relating to a warrant case in terms of part B of Chapter 19 of the CrPC and that without seeking the permission of the Court under Section 173(8) CrPC the CBI continued to illegally investigate the matter. A raid had already taken place on the petitioner s premises on 23rd June 2006, but nothing incriminating had been found. Thereafter the complaint was filed on 1st July, 2006 and the charge sheet on 3rd July, 2006. Despite the petitioner s name figuring in these documents, he was not shown or summoned as an accused at that stage. Since cognizance was taken on 1st July, 2006 and again on 10th July, 2006 and process had not been issued against the petitioner, the CBI was required to proceed as per Chapter 16 and should have sought directions under Section 202 CrPC to investigate the role of the petitioner. 14. Mr. Luthra points out that there are two separate kinds of procedures that can be followed in criminal cases. One emanates from a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC on which cognizance is taken under Section 190 CrPC and thereafter the procedure under Chapter 15 Sections 200 to 203 is followed. The other path is that an FIR is registered under Section 154 CrPC in which investigation begins under Section 156 CrPC which culminates in a report under Section 173 CrPC. It is possible that in a complaint the Magistrate could direct an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, but in the present case the complaint itself was filed at the completion of the investigation. Instead of following either of these distinct paths the prosecution chose to file a supplementary charge sheet based on further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC whereas in a complaint case as the present one no such procedure is known to law. He relies on the decisions in Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 986 and Mohd. Yusuf v. Afaq Jahan (2006) 1 SCC 627. 15. The submission is that if the procedure by which the petitioner was arrested and detained is itself illegal, then all further proceedings are also bad in law. On three occasions i.e. on 1st July 2006, 10th July 2006 and 4th August, 2006 when the case was taken up by the learned CMM, no orders could have been passed in respect of the petitioner as he was not named in the case and no complaint was pending against him. The complaint and charge sheet against him were filed only on 17th October 2006. Therefore by the order dated 22nd July 2006 the petitioner could not have been remanded to police custody. 16. Mr. Luthra submitted that in view of the subsequent developments, these submissions in the petition under Section 482 CrPC should be read as forming part of the bail application.

Page 7 of 15

17. On the merits of the bail application, he submits that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the petitioner was a director/principal officer of Atlas Interactive India Ltd or that he was heading the Atlas Group of Companies in India of which ADS formed a part. The only evidence that is available is to show that the petitioner was an authorised signatory of the bank accounts of the ATN. There was no evidence that the pen drives which were recovered from Vijender Rana were in the possession of the petitioner at any time. Nor was there any evidence of transmission of the material by the co- accused to the petitioner. The highest case against the petitioner was of his connection with the Atlas Group of Companies but those companies by themselves were not made accused and there is no vicarious liability under the Indian Penal Code attached to persons associated with such companies. It is submitted that the offence at the highest as regards ADS would be that it was in possession of secret information which would at best constitute an offence under Section 5 OSA. Vinod Kumar Jha has already been granted bail by this Court and the petitioner s case could not be put on a higher footing. Vinod Kumar Jha was granted bail on the ground that Section 5 OSA would be attracted, if at all, and not Section 3. The pen drives were in an unsealed condition and multiple copies were made by the authorities nine months prior to the pen drives being taken in possession by the CBI. It is submitted that nothing was recovered from the petitioner at any point of time. He did not make any disclosure statement leading to any recovery. No incriminating document was seized from the petitioner. No connection had been established between the pen drives and any computer belonging to the petitioner either at his residence or in his office. The entire case is based on surmises and conjectures. Even the allegation that the petitioner was in constant touch with foreign nationals through e-mail was not substantiated by any document or material on record. In regard to the document in which the endorsement A. Verma occurs, it is submitted that there is another employee by the name Anupam Verma in the company as is evident from a letter from Bharat Electronics Ltd. which is part of the case record. As per the petitioner s enquiry made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the alleged letter was in fact not part of the Ministry s record at all. In its reply the MEA stated: The concerned Division of this Ministry have checked their records. It is regretted that no such papers are available with them. 18. Finally it is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 22 months. If indeed the offence is under Section 5 which was punishable with a maximum of three years imprisonment, and not under Section 3 OSA, then considering the length of time he has already been in custody, the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail because there is no likelihood of an earlier conclusion of the trial. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner the case is at the stage of supply of documents including those in an electronic format and charges are yet to be framed. No further evidence is required to be gathered. 19. With regard to the continued presence of the petitioner before the Court in the event of grant of bail, it is pointed out that the petitioner has been made an approver and granted a pardon by the Special Judge, CBI in another case relating to one Ashok Agarwal, a former Deputy Director of Enforcement. Although the order granting pardon has been challenged before the Supreme Court, the petitioner has been provided security by the Delhi Police due to the death threats faced by the petitioner in the aforementioned case. Therefore the movements of the

Page 8 of 15

petitioner have always been kept track of by the police. In the numerous proceedings against the petitioner under FERA at the behest of Ashok Agarwal restrictions have already been imposed on the petitioner on his travelling abroad. It is stated that the petitioner is alleged to have obtained a second passport by misrepresentation for which prosecution is pending under the Passport Act. However the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the bail imposed in that case. He has complied with all the conditions imposed while granting him temporary suspension of the travelling restriction in the past in those cases. 20. Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned Senior Standing counsel for the State, vehemently opposed the grant of bail. She submits in the first place any procedural irregularity committed by the learned CMM in repeatedly taking cognizance was curable under Section 465 CrPC. Unless the accused demonstrated that there was a failure of justice, such irregularities would not vitiate the proceedings. Where the information gathered disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, the police was duty bound to register an FIR under Section 154 and proceed with the investigation notwithstanding that at that stage no complaint had been filed. What was filed in this case was a separate complaint and not a supplementary charge sheet. There was no option but to adopt two procedures: the complaint procedure for the OSA offences and the FIR procedure for the offences under IPC. It is stated that even though a complaint may have been filed, it does not take away the power of the police to arrest an accused who is suspected of having committed a cognizable offence. Cognizance can be taken even on a police report. She relies upon the decision in Ram Chander v. P.K. Gupta 99 (2002) DLT 706. In support of the submission that the prosecution was bound to follow the procedure under the CrPC till such time a complaint was filed under OSA, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court Frank Dalton Larkins v. State (Delhi Administration) 1985 Crl.LJ 377. Accordingly she submits that no irregularity was committed by the learned CMM in permitting the grant of police custody of the petitioner by the order dated 22nd July 2006. 21. As regards the merits of the case, Ms.Gupta points out that different considerations would come into play when the Court has to consider the question of grant of bail where the offences are under the OSA. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh (2003) 10 SCC 586 to urge that under Section 3(2) OSA a greater latitude is given to the prosecution as it would be difficult to come across precise evidence that can link the accused with the offence and that the offence of conspiracy under Section 120 B would be attracted even if one of the accused is shown to have overtly acted in pursuance of the conspiracy. Overt acts need not to be attributed to each of the accused. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the CBI show that there was a chain of transactions among the accused. She also referred to the e-mail address of Abhishek Verma which might indicate that the words A Verma written on the copy of the text message referred to earlier could only refer to the petitioner. Since over six thousand pages of sensitive information was found contained in the pen drives recovered from Vijender Rana, the crime was of a grave nature. It would be unsafe to release the petitioner on bail. Given the fact that he is facing two cases under the Passport Act, and one of them is related with obtaining a fake passport during the pendency of the case, there is every likelihood of the petitioner misusing the liberty granted to him. Given the sensitive nature of the information, there is also an apprehension of

Page 9 of 15

his being able to tamper with the evidence. She also referred to the order dated 31st May 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the bail application of Kulbushan Parashar. 22. In the first place this Court takes note of the fact that a separate complaint and supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner on the basis of which cognizance has been taken of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. Therefore, at this stage, the question of procedural irregularities committed at the stage of arrest of the petitioner and his remand to police custody by the learned CMM by the order dated 22nd July 2006 is relevant only to a limited extent. If the procedure adopted is not as envisaged by law, then it might form an additional factor for considering if the continued pre- trial detention of the petitioner is justified. Moreover the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the subsequent development, this aspect also be treated as forming part of the bail application itself. 23. The sequence of events narrated above indicates that the raid on the petitioner s premises on 23rd June 2006 did not result in seizure of any document from his possession. By that time an FIR had already been registered. Although the complaint and charge sheet were filed on 1st July and 3rd July 2006, the petitioner was not named in either of those documents. Cognizance was taken on 1st July, 2006 and then again on 10th July, 2006 of the offences. The petitioner was not in the picture then. He was arrested on 21st July 2006 and produced before the learned CMM on 22nd July 2006 and he was remanded to police custody for ten days. Notwithstanding the submission of the learned counsel for the State that it was open to the police to register an FIR and proceed in the matter even in respect of an OSA offence, in the present case by the time the petitioner was arrested a complaint had already been filed against the co- accused on 1st July 2006. The raid on his residence had already taken place on 23rd June 2006 and nothing incriminating had been found. If between that date and 1st July 2006 when the complaint against the co-accused was filed any material against the petitioner had been gathered, then the question arises as to why he was not named as an accused in that complaint arises. If there was material gathered between 1st and 21st July 2006, then the complaint filed later on 17th October 2006 should indicate that. In the absence of a reference to such material, the inference is that no new material which the prosecution was not already aware of had been gathered against the petitioner between 23rd June and 20th July 2006. The circumstances under which the petitioner was arrested on 20th July 2006 is not clear. Also, the submission that the procedure adopted in regard to the petitioner at that stage was a departure from the complaint procedure is not without merit. The learned counsel for the State was unable to show how in respect of a complaint already filed under the OSA, in respect of one of the accused proposed to be included in the case, the FIR procedure was commenced even when the learned CMM had already taken cognizance of the offence under the OSA against other co-accused. This Court however does not consider it necessary to dwell on this aspect further in view of the submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that he would press the grounds of illegality of the procedure only as an additional factor for considering whether the petitioner should be granted bail. Accordingly, the Court proposes to now consider the merits of the application for grant of bail.

Page 10 of 15

24. Considerable emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the prosecution on decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court to urge that certain special considerations should weigh with the court while deciding the question of grant of bail to the accused in an OSA case. The first of these decisions is State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622. In that case, the High Court had granted bail at the pre-charge (but post committal stage) to the accused, inter alia, on the ground that other co-accused had been already enlarged on bail and further that it was arguable whether the offence fell within Section 3 OSA which was non-bailable or Section 5 OSA which at that time was bailable. The Supreme Court disapproved of the approach holding that in such a case the High Court should have proceeded on the assumption that the case fell under Section 3 OSA. It then explained the factors that should weigh with the court in such a case while deciding whether bail should be granted (SCR, para 5): 5. The first question therefore that we have to decide in considering whether the High Court s order should be set aside is whether this is a case which falls prima facie under Section 3 of the Act. It is, however, unnecessary now in view of what has transpired since the High Court s order to decide that question. It appears that the respondent has been committed to the Court of Session along with the other two persons under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act read with Section 120-B. Prima facie therefore, a case has been found against the respondent under Section 3, which is a non-bailable offence. It is in this background that we have now to consider whether the order of the High Court should be set aside. Among other considerations, which a court has to take into account in deciding whether bail should be granted in a non-bailable offence, is the nature of the offence; and if the offence is of a kind in which bail should not be granted considering its seriousness, the court should refuse bail even though it has very wide powers under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now Section 3 of the Act erects an offence which is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State and relates to obtaining, collecting, recording or publishing or communicating to any other person any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy. Obviously, the offence is of a very serious kind affecting the safety or the interests of the State. Further where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment, or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code, it is punishable with fourteen years imprisonment. The case against the respondent is in relation to the military affairs of the Government, and prima facie, therefore, the respondent if convicted would be liable up to fourteen years imprisonment. In these circumstances considering the nature of the offence, it seems to us that this is not a case where discretion, which undoubtedly vests in the court, under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should have been exercised in favour of the respondent. We advisedly say no more as the case has still to be tried. (emphasis supplied) 25. The next decision relied upon is State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555, where after referring to the decision in Capt.Jagjit Singh, a learned Single Judge of the Supreme Court held (SCR, p. 559): The Court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced

Page 11 of 15

should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations. (emphasis supplied) 26. Turning to the case on hand, the first aspect to be considered is the nature and seriousness of the offence. The case of the prosecution is that Section 3 OSA is attracted. The relevant portion thereof reads: Section 3 - Penalties for spying (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State-- (a) and (b), c) obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend, where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to three years. (2) On a prosecution for an offence punishable under this section it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State; and if any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information relating to or used in any prohibited place, or relating to anything in such a place, or any secret official code or pass word is made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, and from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, such sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, [information, code or pass word shall be presumed to have been made], obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. 27. Section 3 contemplates two kinds of offences, one which attracts a greater punishment of 14 years and the other with a lesser punishment of three years. Where the offence is in relation to defence affairs, then the heavier sentence applies. However, if one went by the decision in Capt.Jagjit Singh, at the pre- charge stage, when it is unclear which of the offences is attracted, this Court must proceed on the assumption that the more severe sentence under Section 3 OSA is attracted. This however is not the solitary factor to be considered as is pointed out in Jaspal Singh Gill. 28. Still, even while the decision in Capt.Jagjit Singh requires the court to presume, at the pre-charge stage, that Section 3 OSA is attracted, certain aspects

Page 12 of 15

require to be noticed. The first is that in Capt.Jagjit Singh there had been committal proceedings before the magistrate after which the case had been sent to the Court of Session. This was under the CrPC of 1898. Under the present CrPC there are no such committal proceedings where the magistrate applies his mind to the materials to form a prima facie opinion. The order passed in the instant case by the CMM taking cognizance of the offence under the OSA is virtually a non-speaking order. Therefore no court has as yet formed an opinion, even prima facie, as to the seriousness of the offence. Secondly, there was evidence against the accused there that as a former Captain of the Indian army he was in touch with the foreign agency. He had undergone about five months custody when he was enlarged on bail. His bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court within four months thereafter. In the second decision i.e. Jaspal Singh Gill the accused had been arrested on 19th November 1983 and the High Court had granted bail on 3rd May 1984. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court after applying the above parameters. In neither case was the court faced with a situation where the accused had already undergone, as in this case, 22 months of pre-trial detention, without even a prima facie determination of the seriousness of the offence. 29. The next factor to be considered therefore is about the nature or character of the evidence. The case against the petitioner essentially rests on circumstantial evidence. Counsel on both sides referred to the voluminous record of documents and statements of witnesses tendered with the charge sheet. The respective written submissions filed also refer to the evidence in great detail. This Court is required to form an opinion on the character of the evidence; it is not required to discuss the evidence in any detail at this stage except to the limited extent of considering whether the character of the evidence is such as to warrant continued refusal of bail to the petitioner. 30. Considerable reliance has been placed by the prosecution on a copy of a document in PDF found in the pen drive recovered from Vijender Rana which is a letter dated 5th January, 2005 from one Shri G. Mukhopadhaya, JS (Planning and International Corporation) PIC addressed to Brigadier R.K. Yadav, Military Attache, High Commission of India, London which was sent to the Ministry of External Affairs ( MEA ), New Delhi. The right hand top corner of the copy of the document contains the words: Kind Attention A.Verma. Even if it can be said that the subsequent correspondence between the MEA and the petitioner showing that no such document is available in the records of the MEA should not be looked into at this stage, it appears that this is the only document which is being relied upon by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was connected with the offence. Further, in order to counter the petitioner s contention that A Verma could well refer to an Anupam Verma, the prosecution relies on other contemporaneous documents to show that A Verma indeed refers to the petitioner. 31. The case of the prosecution is that the pen drives recovered from the co- accused Vijender Rana and the documents seized from the premises of the Kulbhushan Parashar contain sensitive information. The fact remains that there were no recoveries made from, or at the instance of, the petitioner. The prosecution was not able to rebut the submission of the petitioner that the pen drives were not tamper proof when handed over to the CBI and by then several copies of their contents had been made. This is being adverted to only to the extent it is relevant

Page 13 of 15

to consider the character of the evidence. In order to show that the petitioner is connected with these accused the prosecution relies on statements of certain witnesses, which again cannot be discussed in any detail at this stage. The absence of evidence of recovery of incriminating material from the petitioner which could link him with the alleged offence, makes his case different from that of Kulbhushan Parashar whose bail application was rejected by this Court. 32. The other factor that is urged by the prosecution is that the petitioner is involved with Atlas Group of Companies. The fact that two companies with which the petitioner was supposed to be associated have the same address as ADS is not by itself sufficient, when his association with these two companies is not established. Further, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that ADS and ATN were even according to the prosecution supplying sensitive equipment to the defence. This perhaps explains some of the correspondence with the ministries. The statements of certain witnesses, which have been referred to at some length during the course of arguments, also do not appear to provide any clear picture as to the petitioner s involvement. The evidence in support of the prosecution s assertions that the petitioner was closely associated or was in charge of and in control of the Atlas Group of companies, or privy to the passing of secret information by the co-accused is not clearly discernible at this stage. This is a tentative opinion since these aspects will doubtlessly have to be examined at some length by the trial court at the subsequent stages of the case. 33. The Court is also conscious that in cases of conspiracy it is difficult to produce direct evidence and that is only through circumstances that the role of the different conspirators can be determined. The decision of the Supreme Court in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh (2003) 10 SCC 586 explains that under Section 3 (2) OSA, once the accused is found in conscious possession of the material then it will be presumed that the possession was for a purpose prejudicial to the interests of the State. Further it was held that (SCC, p.594): Each one of the several acts enumerated in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, by themselves will constitute, individually, an offending act to attract the said provision and it is not necessary that only one or more of them and particularly, publishing or communication of the same need be conjointly proved for convicting one charged with the offence of obtaining or collecting records or secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information. However in that case the stage was that of post-conviction whereas here the evidence is yet to be tested even for a prima facie determination. In any event the presumption under Section 3 (2) is a rebuttable one and that exercise will have to await the trial. It is unsafe to invoke Section 3 (2) at this stage when a clear picture as to the involvement of the petitioner is yet to emerge. 34. The other factors to be considered are whether it can be ensured that the accused does not evade the proceedings and is available at every hearing, that he does not tamper with the evidence or impede the fair progress of the trial. The prosecution does not deny, and in fact it is stated in as many words in the complaint itself, that the petitioner is an approver in another case involving one Ashok Agarwal, a former Deputy Director of Enforcement. They also do not deny that the order granting pardon is pending challenge before the Supreme Court and that the petitioner was provided security by the Delhi Police due to the death

Page 14 of 15

threats faced by him in that case. Clearly, therefore, the movements of the petitioner would have been under close surveillance of the police. The cases under FERA and the Passport Act were earlier to the present case and restrictions have already been imposed by the petitioner on his travelling abroad. This Court is of the view that that if appropriate restrictions can be put in place, the prosecution should be able to ensure the presence of the petitioner at the trial. 35. The prosecution should also be able to ensure that the petitioner does not tamper with the documentary evidence all of which has been already gathered by it and is the custody of the court. The case turns essentially on such documentary evidence. As far as witnesses are concerned, one of the accused is already on bail and there is no incident of any of the witnesses being intimidated. Again, the prosecution should in anticipation of such contingency not only ensure that the witnesses receive adequate protection but if any such threat is received by any witness it should immediately move the court for cancellation of bail. 36. The petitioner has been in custody for over 22 months. It does not seem possible that the trial will commence in the immediate future since the stage of order on charge is yet to be crossed. Considering the large volume of documents in the case and the number of accused persons involved, it seems unlikely that the trial will conclude within a reasonable period thereafter. On the sole consideration of the seriousness of the offence, on which a prima facie opinion is yet to be formed by the trial court, would it be justified to continue the pretrial detention of the petitioner which is already beyond 22 months On balancing the several factors discussed this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner should be granted bail, subject to conditions which would be stringent considering the nature of the case and the fact that the petitioner is facing trial and prosecution in certain other cases. The Court also proposes to direct the trial court to expeditiously pass an order on charge so that the case can progress to the next stage without further delay. 37. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to considering the case of the petitioner for grant of bail and are not intended to influence the opinion to be formed by the trial court at any of the subsequent stages of the case. 38. The Court accordingly directs that the petitioner will be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioner will furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10 lakhs with two

sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.. (b) The petitioner will not leave Delhi during the pendency of the criminal

proceedings against him without the prior permission of the trial Court. (c) If not already done, the petitioner will surrender his passport forthwith to the

CBI and appropriate measures will be taken by the CBI to ensure that the petitioner does not travel outside India during the pendency of the criminal proceedings.

(d) The petitioner will appear on the second and fourth Monday of every month before the trial court, and also on each date the case is fixed before the trial court and will on each occasion furnish his correct current address.

Page 15 of 15

(e) The petitioner will not attempt to influence any witness or tamper with the evidence or seek unnecessary adjournments before the trial court.

If any of the above conditions is violated, it would be open to the CBI to apply for cancellation of bail. 39. The trial court should complete the supply of documents to the accused and hear arguments on charge and pass an order on charge at the conclusion of the arguments on or before 3rd September, 2008. 40. The bail application and the petition under Section 482 CrPC are disposed of accordingly. 41. Order dasti to the counsel for the parties. S. MURALIDHAR, J. MAY 30, 2008 Dn Crl.M.C. No.4231/2006 and Bail Appln.No.2546/2007

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--BB22

Assistant

Text Box

Abhishek Verma's complaint to Bar Council of India against V.S.Rawat Advocate

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26136534 Page 1

The President Bar Council of India 2/6 Siri Fort Institutional Area Khel Goan Marg New Delhi 110049 28th December 2012

Subject: 2nd Complaint against Advocate Virendra Singh Rawat s/o Shri Munshi Ram, r/o 54, Model Town West, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

Sir, I am an Approver of the CBI Court of Additional Sessions Judge Shri V.K. Maheshwari, Tis Hazari Courts against a corrupt and dishonest IRS officer Ashok Aggarwal who was former Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate. I deposed against Aggarwal u/s 164 IPC in December 1999 and was accorded tender of pardon in September 2001 by the Court in the aforesaid case of CBI (FIR# RC-SIU-8-1999-E-0001). The trial in the said case is presently stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India since my Approver status is under challenge by accused Ashok Aggarwal.

I would like to complain against a blackmailer and extortionist advocate Virendra Singh Rawat who masquerades in the garb of an advocate blackmailing his clients for large sums and when his extortion demands are not met he sells privileged information received during the course of his representation of his clients as an advocate to the rivals of his clients for huge sums.

I am a victim of Rawat’s black deeds, dishonesty, blackmail and extortion. I had also filed complaints against Rawat before the Bar Council of India in January 2011. However, no action was taken against Rawat (copy attached Annexure-A) by the Bar Council of India.

Rawat was my counsel from July 1999 till September 2008. I removed him from my case(s) in September 2008 as he was blackmailing and extorting monies from me every now and then. Complete facts of Rawat’s unethical behavior are contained in my aforementioned attached letter of January 18, 2011 addressed to the Bar Council of India.

To my utter shock and surprise when accused Ashok Aggarwal filed an additional affidavit in Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10th November 2012 in the aforementioned SLP, pages 63 to 67 contained an Affidavit executed by Rawat in the matter of CBI v/s Ashok Aggarwal (SLP 7266 of 2007) copy of which is duly flagged as Annexure-B with this letter, which is in favour of Ashok Aggarwal. The language and the events mentioned therein are a figment of Rawat’s imagination and Ashok Aggarwal’s guidance provided to Rawat in order to spoil the case of the CBI against him and prejudice the minds of the judiciary.

Page 71 of the said Affidavit flagged as Annexure-C filed by Rawat is the copy of the vakalatnama executed in his favour by me authorizing Rawat as my counsel. This proves the client-attorney relationship that existed between Rawat and myself.

Page 72 of the said Affidavit flagged as Annexure-D filed by Rawat is a forged document that Rawat has claimed in his Affidavit that I allegedly issued October 12th, 2007 in favour of Ashok Aggarwal against whom I am an Approver of the Court.

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26136534 Page 2

Your attention is drawn towards several blaring discrepancies in the above document mentioned as below:

- The aforementioned document appearing on page 72 was never executed by me.

- The said document is not countersigned and stamped by Tihar Jail Authorities. I was incarcerated in Tihar Jail from 1st August 2006 till 2nd June 2008 in a case of the CBI titled Navy War Room Leak Case. All documents / affidavits issued by inmates of Tihar have to be counter-signed by Jail Authorities and duly stamped. There are no markings of such kind of the said affidavit.

- The blank paper on which the said Affidavit has been forged was indeed signed by me however it was a blank document and kept in the custody of Rawat

- My signatures on the said Affidavit are not properly aligned on the word “Deponent” this shows the text on the said affidavit was printed afterwards and great efforts were made unsuccessfully to align the text to the signatures.

in order for him to type on it my bail application’s last page that was to be filed in High Court of Delhi. However Rawat broke my trust and misused this document kept with him and typed an Affidavit favouring Ashok Aggarwal on the blank page.

Rawat not only violated the sacrosanct relationship between Client and his Attorney but also indulged in forgery and cheating to benefit Ashok Aggarwal who paid handsomely to Rawat for services rendered.

In view of all the fraudulent actions of Rawat, it is my humble request to initiate action against Virendra Singh Rawat Advocate and debar him from membership of The Bar Council under Advocates Act most urgently.

I am forwarding a copy of this complaint to the Delhi Police and the CBI to initiate register a case against Ashok Aggarwal & Virendra Singh Rawat for conspiracy to fraud, forgery, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation to influence the Approver in the said case.

Yours truly,

Abhishek Verma s/o Late Shrikant Verma Ward 4-B, Jail-4 Tihar Prisons, New Delhi

Copy to: Shri O.P. Galhotra, Jt Director CBI, New Delhi Enclosed: As above.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--BB33

REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 935-936 OF 2009(arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3393-3394 /2009

@ Crl. MP Nos. 20054-20055/2008)C.B.I., New Delhi. ..…Appellant

Versus

Abhishek Verma .….Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties on the delay application. For the reasons

stated in the application, delay stands condoned.

2. Leave granted

3. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30.05.2008

passed by the High Court of Delhi by which the learned Single Judge

granted bail to the respondent herein.

4. Facts in brief as per prosecution are as follows:

In May, 2005 a court of inquiry conducted by the Air Force

Headquarters had established that one Wing Commander S.L. Surve had

obtained a pen drive containing information pertaining to the Directorate of

Naval Operation (DNO) from Kulbhushan Parashar, a former officer of the

Indian Navy. A Board of Enquiry was held by the Naval Headquarters and

Page 1 of 15

three Naval Officers namely Kashyap Kumar, Vijender Rana and Vinod

Kumar Jha were indicted for causing classified naval information to be

leaked to unauthorized persons thus jeopardizing the security of the State. In

the said Court of Enquiry it came to light that Kulbhushan Parashar was

associated with a company named Atlas.

On the basis of the information received from the Ministry of Defence

under two letters dated 18.02.2006 and 01.03.2006, the Central Bureau of

Investigation (in short ‘the CBI’) registered an FIR on 20.3.2006 under

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘the IPC’) read with

Section 3(1)(c) and Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (in short ‘the

OSA’) against Kulbhushan Parashar, Ex. Cdr. Ravi Shankaran, S.K. Kohli,

Mukesh Bajaj, Ms. Rajrani Jaiswal, Sambhajee L. Surve, Virender Rana,

Kashyap Kumar and Vijender Kumar Jha. The Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Delhi passed an order dated 10th July, 2006 taking cognizance of

the above-mentioned offences.

After completion of investigation, charge sheets were filed against

Kulbhushan Parashar, Ex. Cdr. Vijender Rana, Ex. Cdr., V.K. Jha, Ex. Wg.

Cdr., S.L. Surve and Ravi Shankaran (Proclaimed Offender). The

investigation revealed that all these accused can be grouped in 3 categories

as follows:

Page 2 of 15

GROUP I It consists of the accused who were serving in Indian

Navy and Indian Air Force. Accused Vijender Rana, V.K. Jha and S.L.

Surve fall in this group.

GROUP II It consists of the accused who have been retired from

Indian Navy. Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran (Proclaimed

Offender) fall in this group.

GROUP III It consists of the accused who were private persons and

have never served Indian Navy or Air Force. The respondent herein

(Abhishek Verma) falls in this group.

5. The allegation in the charge sheet was that Kulbhushan Parashar who

was earlier working with Ravi Shankaran at Mumbai, started working

with the respondent after he moved to Delhi. Kulbhushan Parashar was

the Vice President of Atlas Defence System (ADS) and was interacting

with the Ministry of Defence for various products including 2 MB PCM

MUC multiplexing equipment for simultaneous transmission of subject,

telegraph messages and data over point to point communication,

Subscriber End Secrecy Device (SESD) and Terrestrial Trunk Radio

(TETRA) and Aerostat. It has been stated that the respondent was closely

associated with Atlas Group of Companies and also those which existed

in India in the name and style of Atlas Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. and

Page 3 of 15

M/s. One World Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. which had close links with

foreign registered sister concerns M/s. Atlas Defence Systerms, Atlas

Telecom Pvt. Ltd. U.K. The respondent was on the board of two other

companies, viz., Atlas Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. (AIIPL) and One World

Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. (OWIPL). Although the bids were made by

M/s. Atlas Telecom Network (ATN) and ADS, the respondent was also

stated to be associated with these companies and was monitoring the

bids. The address of both these companies was also used by ADS and

ATN. According to the CBI, ADS was a division of the Atlas Group

which provided turnkey high speed aeronautical satellite communications

solutions from highly secure military application.

6. It has been further stated in the charge sheet that there was a close

association between the respondent herein and Kashyap Kumar and Ravi

Shankaran. Ravi Shankaran has received such critical information on

national security from the compromised defence officers namely

Vijender Rana, through the Jet Flash Pen Drive and e-mails and that he

was also in touch with foreign companies. It has been further stated that a

file bearing No. IDS/Ops/C412/32037, which is a file classified as secret

and deals with matters related to Andaman and Nicobar Command of

Indian Army which is of high strategic importance from the point of view

Page 4 of 15

of national security and the fact that this document has been sent to the

respondent herein and has been recovered from this Jet Flash Pen Drive

clearly proves that the respondent was having access to such official

records of Defence Ministry having a bearing on the safety and security

of the nation, through some compromised officers who were

paid/gratified for providing information illegally to him directly and also

to Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran. A jet flash pen drive

recovered from Vijender Rana, an officer posted in the Naval War Room,

indicated the commission paid to the respondent by Kulbhushan Parashar

and Ravi Shankaran in Mumbai and Delhi as between 0.5% to 1.5% for

procurement of equipments. Documents seized from the residential

premises of Kulbhushan Parashar contained official correspondence

between the Atlas Group of Companies with the armed forces and the

Ministry of Defence relating to the supply of equipment for the Indian

Army for which ATN was one of the bidders. Kulbhushan Parashar is

stated to have purchased pen drives and distributed it to the other officers

including Vijender Rana and S.L. Survey. Therefore, it was stated that

Kulbhushan Parashar and Ravi Shankaran had an active role in collecting

and passing on of 6867 pages of classified defence information from the

computers of the Naval War Room of Indian Air Force which is stated to

be evident from the pen drives recovered from Vijender Rana and S.L.

Page 5 of 15

Surve.

7. The respondent was summoned by the CBI to join investigation. As the

respondent couldn’t reply satisfactorily, he was arrested on 21st July,

2006. On 22nd July, 2006 the CMM, Delhi remanded him to police

custody. Aggrieved by the said order of the CMM, Delhi, the respondent

filed a petition bearing Crl. M.C. No. 4231 of 2006 under Section 482

Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Delhi challenging the aforesaid order of

the CMM, Delhi and prayed for his release forthwith. On a subsequent

application, the High Court on 17th August, 2006 permitted the

respondent to amend the prayer clause seeking quashing of the order

dated 22nd July, 2006 and “all orders/proceedings consequent thereto in

view of the subsequent developments”.

8. On 18th October, 2006 a complaint under Section 13 of the OSA was filed

and on the next date i.e. 19th October 2006 a supplementary charge sheet

were filed against the respondent. The CMM took cognizance of the

offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the OSA and under Section 409/109

read with Section 120-B IPC. On 13th April, 2007, an application of bail

by respondent was rejected by the CMM. The respondent’s subsequent

application for bail was dismissed by the ADJ, Delhi on 29th May, 2007.

The respondent then preferred a bail application bearing Bail Application

Page 6 of 15

No. 2546 of 2007 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of

Delhi praying for the grant of bail.

9. The High Court in its common judgment and order dated 30th May 2008

disposed both the matters pending before it (i.e. Cr.M.C. No. 4231 of

2006 and Bail Application No. 2546 of 2007) by granting bail to the

respondent on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lakh with

two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the trial court enlarged the

respondent on bail on 03.06.2008. The respondent, therefore, is presently

on bail and there is no allegation that at any point of time subsequent

thereto he has misused or mis-utilised the liberty granted to him.

10.Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the appellant has

preferred the present appeal. It was contended that the instant case is

related to leakage of sensitive classified information relating to defence

matter of India by use of advanced communication technologies like Pen

Drives, Scanners, Fax Machines and E-mails etc. and that over six

thousand pages of sensitive information were taken out from the

Directorate of Naval Operation (DNO) and Air Force Headquarters, for a

purpose prejudicial to safety and interest of India. It is evident that the

crime is of grave nature. The national security was jeopardized and no

Page 7 of 15

offence is graver than the offence where national interest was put on

stake. In view of the same, it was urged that the High Court erred in

granting bail to the respondent.

11.On the other hand, it was forcefully argued on the behalf of the

respondent that the High Court rightly granted the bail to the respondent

as there was no material on record to show that the respondent was a

director/principal officer of Atlas Interactive India Ltd or that he was

heading the Atlas Group of Companies in India of which ADS formed a

part. It was also contended that the only evidence available against the

respondent is that he is an authorised signatory of the bank accounts of

the ATN and there was no evidence to show that the pen drives which

were recovered from Vijendra Rana were in the possession of the

respondent at any time. Further, there was no evidence of transmission of

the material by the co-accused to the respondent. The pen drives were in

an unsealed condition and multiple copies were made by the authorities

nine months prior to the pen drives being taken in possession by the CBI.

Neither the respondent has made any disclosure statement leading to any

recovery nor have any incriminatory documents been seized from the

respondent. Further, no link has been established between the pen drives

Page 8 of 15

and any computer belonging to the respondent either at his residence or

in his office. The aforesaid submissions were carefully considered by us.

12.Before further dwelling into the matter we would like to clarify here that

nothing discussed herein or observation made herein while disposing the

instant appeal be treated as any comment on the merit and also the trial

and the same must not influence the opinion of the trial court in any

manner.

13.Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in

State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555 @ 559, wherein this Court

has observed as follows:

“9. The offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 with which the respondent is charged relates to military affairs and it is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to fourteen years. This Court in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh1 has indicated that the Court should exercise a greater degree of care in enlarging on bail an accused who is charged with the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act when it relates to military affairs. I have also gone through the decisions of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)2 and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh3 which deal with the principles governing the grant of bail. It may be mentioned here that in the last of the above cases, the accused had been acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the High Court on appeal. On a consideration of the above three decisions, I am of the view that the Court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take

Page 9 of 15

into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations.”

(emphasis added)

14.So, before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences

particularly where the trial has not yet commenced, the first aspect which

must be examined is with regard to the nature and seriousness of the

offence. Inter-alia, one of the charges against the respondent is Section 3

of the OSA. A perusal of Section 3 shows that it contemplates two kinds

of offences, one which attracts a greater punishment of 14 years and the

other with a lesser punishment of 3 years. The appellant has relied on

several decisions of this Court to establish that when it is unclear which

punishment to be applied under Section 3 of OSA, the Court must

proceed on the assumption that it is the more severe i.e. 14 years which is

to be applied. However, the cases cited by the appellant are

distinguishable. In none of the cases cited by the appellant, the accused

had already undergone pre-trial detention of twenty two months without

even a prima facie determination of the seriousness of the offence.

15. Further, with regard to nature and character of the evidence, the

prosecution case is essentially based on circumstantial evidence. It would

Page 10 of 15

neither be appropriate nor desirable to discuss the entire evidence as the

same is the subject matter of the trial. However, for the limited purpose

of the disposal of the present appeal we deem it appropriate to consider

the character of the evidence. It is the case of the appellant that a copy of

document in PDF form found in the pen drive recovered from Vijender

Rana which is a letter dated 5th January, 2005 from an official of Indian

High Commission, London to the Ministry of External Affairs, New

Delhi. The right hand top corner of the copy of the documents contains

the word: ‘Kind Attention A. Verma’. According to the respondent no

such document is available in the records of the MEA and ‘A. Verma’

could well refer to an Anupam Verma. The veracity of such rival claims

can only be decided during the trial.

16.It was argued by the appellant that the pen drives recovered from the co-

accused Vijendra Rana and the documents seized from the premises of

Kulbhushan Parashar contain sensitive information. However, there is no

denial of the fact that there was neither any recovery from the respondent

nor at the instance of the respondent. Further, no satisfactory answer has

been provided by the appellants to counter the submission of the

respondent that the pen drives were not temper proof when handed over

Page 11 of 15

to the CBI and before handing it to the CBI, several copies of their

contents was made by the authorities.

17.The appellant has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in Govt.

of NCT, Delhi v. Jaspal Singh 2003 (10) SCC 586 @ 593, wherein this

Court observed:

“8. So far as the scope of Section 3(1) (c) of the Act is concerned, it was urged for the respondent that unless the articles enumerated are shown to be “secret” document or material and that besides their collection they were published or communicated to any other person, the charge under the said provision could not be said to have been made out. Apparently, the inspiration for such a submission was the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Dr B.K. Subbarao1. We are unable to agree with this extreme submission on behalf of the respondent. This Court in Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat2 had held: (a) that the word “secret” in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 qualified official code or password and not any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information, and (b) when the accused was found in conscious possession of the material (map in that case) and no plausible explanation has been given for its possession, it has to be presumed as required by Section 3(2) of the Act that the same was obtained or collected by the appellant for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. Further, each one of the several acts enumerated in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, by themselves will constitute, individually, an offending act to attract the said provision and it is not necessary that only one or more of them and particularly, publishing or communication of the same need be conjointly proved for convicting one charged with the offence of obtaining or collecting records or secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information. Any such interpretation would not only amount to doing violence to the language, scheme

Page 12 of 15

underlying and the very object of the said provision besides rendering otiose or a dead letter the specific provision engrafted in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. In view of this, the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court in B.K. Subbarao1 cannot be said to lay down the correct position of law on the scope of Section 3(1) (c) of the Act.” (emphasis added)

18.The above-mentioned case succinctly explains the ambit of Section 3(2)

of the OSA by stating that once the accused is found in conscious

possession of the material then it would be presumed that such

possession was for a purpose prejudicial to the interests of the State.

Clearly, the said presumption under Section 3(2) of the OSA is a

rebuttable presumption and the respondent will have an opportunity to

rebut the same during the trial. Further, the case relied hereinabove by the

appellant is clearly distinguishable as in the above-mentioned case the

stage was that of post-conviction and has little bearing on the present one

since in the present case, the evidence is yet to be adduced in the trial.

19.Further, there is no denial of the fact that the respondent is an approver in

another case involving one Ashok Agarwal, a former Deputy Director of

Enforcement. The said order of making approver is under challenge

before this Court. The respondent has been provided security by the

Delhi Police due to the death threats faced by him in that case.

Restrictions have already been imposed on the respondent on his

Page 13 of 15

traveling abroad in earlier matters (viz. under the FERA and the Passport

Act). So, we find that the prosecution would have no difficulty in

securing the presence of the respondent during the trial. Despite the fact

that he is on bail for last about ten months there is no allegation about

any misuse or abuse of the liberty or violation of any of the conditions.

20.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no infirmity in the judgment

and order passed by the High Court. We make it clear that whatever

views and conclusion we have expressed in this order of ours are purely

prima facie and for the limited purpose of finding out whether the

impugned order of the High Court is sustainable or not. The trial court

shall not in any manner be influenced by these observations of ours or

that of the High Court made in the course of the order granting bail as all

such observations are tentative in nature. The trial court would

necessarily examine the evidence after it is led on their own merit and

without being in any manner influenced by this order and also the order

passed by the High Court granting bail. We, however, make it clear that

if at any point of time there is any adverse allegation against the

respondent regarding any misuse or abuse of the liberty granted to him

and as and when an application is filed with such allegation seeking for

cancellation of bail, the trial court shall deal with such contention and

Page 14 of 15

prayer in accordance with law and pass such order as deem fit and

proper.

21. Accordingly, the present appeals are hereby dismissed with the

aforesaid observations.

………………………..J.

[S.B. Sinha]

...………………………J. [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

New Delhi,May 6, 2009

Page 15 of 15

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--BB44

Assistant

Text Box

Statement tendered by Advocate Rawat in favour of Ashok Aggarwal on 13th Jan.2009

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--BB55

Assistant

Text Box

Forged Affidavit of Abhishek Verma in favour of Ashok Aggarwal filed in Supreme Court

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--BB66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

O.M.P. 754/2011

GANTON LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Mr Amit Sibal,

Mr. Gaurav Mitra and Mr. Sachin Midha, Advocates

versus

ANOVA INFRACON PRIVATE LTD and ANOTHER ..... Respondent

Through: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate,

Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate,

Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate,

Mr.S.S. Chhabra and Mr. L. Nidhiram

Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

O R D E R

11.11.2011

O.M.P. 754/2011

Page 1 of 3

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/d... 18/07/2013 1:14:46 PM

Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has suppressed and withheld material documents and material facts from this Court and has misled this court to grant ex parte injunction. Dr.Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner has inter alia suppressed from the court Memorandum of Understanding for joint venture/consortium dated 7.12.2010, copy of letter dated 14.5.2011, copy of meeting notice dated 20.5.2011 issued by the agreed arbitrator, copy of settlement dated 14.6.2011 signed before the Sole Arbitrator, copy of agreement to rescind joint venture agreement dated 14.6.2011 of Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority,

cheque issued by the petitioner, letter dated 2.11.2011, letter dated 4.11.2011, original certified copy of Form-I of Zoom Infratech Ltd. and copy of Memorandum of Understanding for appointment of Sole Arbitrator.

Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for the petitioner disputes execution of any of the above documents by his clients. It is categorically submitted that his clients never agreed for appointment of Shri Jagdish Titler as the Sole Arbitrator, nor his client appeared before the Sole Arbitrator or interacted with him. Let a specific affidavit be filed by the petitioner. Let the affidavit be filed within three days from today.

Reply has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file rejoinder. Rejoinder be filed within one week. List on 29th November, 2011.

Crl.M.A.17651/2011 (filed by respondent No.2)

Notice. Counsel for the petitioner accepts notice. Reply be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

I.A. No.17244/2011 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

I.A. No.17222/2011

This is an application for placing copy of notice dated 27th October, 2011 on record. Counsel for the respondents without admitting any of the averments made in this application submits that he has no objection to the same being placed on record. Accordingly, notice is taken on record.

The application stands disposed of. Interim orders to continue.

Page 2 of 3

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/d... 18/07/2013 1:14:46 PM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

O.M.P. 754/2011

GANTON LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate and

Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with

Mr.Amit Sibal, Mr.Gaurav Mitra and

Mr.Sachin Midha, Advocates

versus

ANOVA INFRACON PRIVATE LTD and ANOTHER ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate and

Mr.Arvind K. Nigam, Sr. Advocate with

Mr.S.S. Chhabra, Advocate

CORAM:

Page 1 of 4

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/d... 18/07/2013 1:14:14 PM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

O R D E R

30.11.2011

1. Arguments have been concluded by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel

for the respondent seeks time to address the arguments.

2. List on 08.12.2011, as prayed.

3. It is agreed that Mr.Sanjay Chhabra and Mr.Saurabh Seth, Advocates

will jointly approach the arbitrator for handing over the record of this

case. They will carry envelops along with seal, match stick and candle,

to enable the arbitrator to seal the record and hand over the same to

them, which shall be deposited in this court today itself. In case the

Arbitrator is not available, the record shall be brought and filed on

record tomorrow.

4. The controversy revolves around signing of various documents by

Mr.Arjun Arora, who was authorized by a Board Resolution dated

22.12.2010, to sign joint venture agreement by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that all subsequent documents on which strong

Page 2 of 4

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/d... 18/07/2013 1:14:14 PM

reliance is placed by the respondent, which include a settlement,

appearance before the Arbitrator and other documents which have been

signed by Mr.Arjun Arora, were without any mandate. In view of this, I

deem it appropriate to direct Mr.Arjun Arora to remain present in court

on the next date of hearing.

5. Copy of this order be served upon Mr.Arjun Arora, DASTI as I am

informed that there is likelihood of Mr.Arjun Arora, leaving the country.

6. DASTI under the signatures of the Court Master to counsel for parties.

G.S.SISTANI,J

NOVEMBER 30, 2011

ssn

O.M.P. 754/2011 2/2

Page 3 of 4

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/d... 18/07/2013 1:14:14 PM

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--CC11

Assistant

Text Box

Ram Jethmalani's complaint against Abhishek Verma February 2012 to Director Enforcement enclosing papers forged by Edmonds Allen

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--CC22

Assistant

Text Box

Emails exchanged between Prashant Bhushan and C.Edmonds Allen conspiring against Abhishek Verma

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--CC33

Assistant

Text Box

Order sheet of Magistrate taking cognizance on the complaint of Abhishek Verma against C.Edmonds Allen for fraud, cheating and breach of trust, June 2012

Assistant

Text Box

Statement of Abhishek Verma in the complaint against C.Edmonds Allen in October 2012

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--CC44

Assistant

Text Box

Clarification issued by Finance Minister regarding allegations against Shri Pranab Mukheriji and Abhishek Verma in June 2012

Page 1 of 8

REPLY TO THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST SHRI. PRANAB

MUKHERJEE, UNION FINANCE MINISTER, BY INDIA AGAINST

CORRUPTION IN THEIR LETTER DATED 26.5.12 ADDRESSED TO

THE PRIME MINSTER CONTAINING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST 15

MINISTERS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

It is unfortunate that India Against Corruption that claims to represent the

high standards of ethical behaviour has thrown its professed moral ground

to winds and sent to the Prime Minister allegations against the Finance

Minister, Shri. Pranab Mukherjee, without disclosing that these very

allegations are the subject matter of a PIL before the High Court of Delhi

after it was withdrawn in the Supreme Court of India on 21 April 2006,

the first day of the hearing. What compounds the unethicality is that the

team has called for an investigation into the allegations that is the main

prayer in the PIL, without referring to the various orders passed by the

High Court.

2. Shri. Prashant Bhushan has been the advocate in the PIL ever since it was

filed in the Supreme Court in 2006. He is now seeking to agitate in a

non-judicial forum what he has been unable to achieve through a

constitutional process.

3. The complaint which has now been sent to the Prime Minster does not

disclose either that he (Shri Bhushan) who is also a prominent member of

India Against Corruption, is the advocate in the PIL in the High Court or

that the matter is sub judice on the same issues before the High Court.

4. He has concealed the fact that the Government of India has through its

counter affidavit filed in the PIL not only questioned the motives of the

petitioners in filing the petition, but also pointed out the blatant

inaccuracies and false surmises in the two stories that appeared in the

Outlook magazine in its editions of 20 February 2006 and 27 February

Page 2 of 8

2006 on certain leakage of information from the Naval War Room on

which the Petitioners have almost exclusively relied on.

5. The news stories also falsely linked the war room with the acquisition of

Scorpene submarines. The petitioners are also aware that as soon as the

first article was published, the Ministry of Defence addressed a letter

dated 14 February 2006 to the Editor-in-Chief and the Senior Editor of

Outlook Magazine pointing out the factual errors and in particular, to the

erroneous conclusions drawn therefrom, in the said article. For reasons

best known to them, „Outlook‟ never published the letter/clarifications.

The petitioners have nevertheless made these articles the basis of their

PIL even though several news items were published in leading dailies

casting doubts on the credibility of the material published in the Outlook

magazine.

5. The Government has clearly stated in its counter affidavit that the stories

in the Outlook had based its conclusions on non-existent file notings and

documents. The following facts of the case demonstrate the falsity of the

allegations:

a) An enquiry held in May 2005 at the Air HQ based on the pen drive

recovered from Lt. (Retd.) Kulbhushan Parashar culminated in a full

investigation, which pointed towards involvement of some persons in

leakage of information of commercial value. This inquiry did not

reveal any linkage whatsoever with the Scorpene submarine project.

As far as the leakage of information was concerned, the law took its

course, FIR was lodged, charge sheet submitted and the trial is

pending in the court of ACMM.

b) It was established that the alleged e-mails and other communication of

Mr. Jean-Paul Perrier with Mr. Abhishek Verma and the faxes from

the former‟s company Thales were found to be fabricated and false.

The French Company had denied the allegations of employing any

Page 3 of 8

middlemen and had, in fact initiated legal action against the magazine

Outlook. The French Embassy also termed the said article as

scandalous. In addition, the Chairman and CEO of Thales addressed a

letter to the Chief of Naval Staff on 14 February 2006 stating interalia

that “Thales formally denies the magazine‟s allegations about the

group.”

c) There was no material before the Government as alleged that Mr.

Abhishek Verma‟s uncle had written to RM. No such noting existed

in the records, especially in the Ministry of Defence.

d) The PIL stated that the project was approved despite serious

objections and claimed that a letter bearing 05/01/2005-ECV dated 13

May 2005 was sent by the Finance Minister to the Raksha Mantri

expressing worries on the escalated price of the project. However, no

such letter was written. However, a letter bearing number 05/01/2005-

EEC-V dated 13 May 2005 was received. This letter, however, refers

to deliberations held in the 15th session of the Indo-German Joint

Commission on Industrial and Economic Cooperation meeting held in

April 2005 during which the representatives of a German company

had mentioned the pending litigation relating to the HDW submarine

and their request for an early resolution of the same.

e) The PIL also pointed to the link between the war room and Scorpene

project and alleged that a „TOP SECRET‟ Power Point presentation

on the submarine acquisition project was leaked from war-room.

However the slides reproduced in the magazine were never the subject

of any of the presentations before the Navy HQ. The CBI had even

concluded that one of the visuals shown in the Outlook article which

was claimed to be a snap shot of the Scorpene related matter, was

found to be a creation of the visual teams of the magazine.

Page 4 of 8

f) The intention of publishing such false material was nothing but to

mislead the readers and connect the Scorpene project with the War

Room Leakage. Naval HQ never made any presentation of the alleged

kind to the Ministry of Defence to seek permission for some officers

to visit Chile or France to see the Scorpene delivery to the Chilean

Navy.

g) Since May 2004 the Scorpene Programme was dealt with by Projects

75 Cell and not by the Directorate of Submarine Acquisitions

exposing the falsity of their contentions. The enquiry conducted by the

Navy also revealed that there was no connection between the War

Room Leak and the Scorpene project.

h) There are several other material inaccuracies and falsities in the stories

published in the magazine. Outlook alleged that the contracts were of

the value of Rs.16,000 crore. Value of the two contracts with the two

French Firms was only to the extent of Rs.7,197/- crore. The statement

of the Finance Minister in the Rajya Sabha was twisted to suit their

convenience.

6. As stated above, based on the articles published in the Outlook magazine,

the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) through Mr. Prashant

Bhushan, Advocate, who is a part of it as well as a prominent member of

India Against Corruption, filed a petition allegedly a public interest one,

before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court praying for a CBI enquiry into the

Scorpene Project and on April 10, 2006 the same was got dismissed by

the petitioners themselves on the submission that they would like to

approach the Hon‟ble High Court. They approached the Hon‟ble High

Court with the same substance and pleas, on April 21, 2006.

7. The Hon‟ble High Court passed a detailed order on December 20, 2007,

wherein a CBI inquiry was directed. At that time, Shri Prashant Bhushan

handed over a list containing seven specific aspects which according to

Page 5 of 8

him, should be adverted to, while concluding the inquiry and drawing up

the report. The CBI submitted a report in April 2008 after detailed

investigation and concluded that the allegations regarding irregularities

including the seven aspects referred to above, in processing the Scorpene

deal, are not established.

8. At the initial stage of the PIL, the petitioners in the writ petitions said that

the IB had the requisite information. The same was denied by the IB.

When the above mentioned petition was about to be disposed of, an

additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners in the writ

petition stating that they wish to place on record CAG Report of accounts

and financial transactions relating to the Indian Air Force, Indian Navy,

Indian Coasts Guard and other defence services for the year ended 2008

and the said report had also examined the Scorpene deal. The CAG report

in no way indicted the Government or any individual of any mala fide

and only referred to some systematic deficiencies. As required, the CAG

Report was placed before the Parliament, which then referred the matter

to its Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The PAC in its 10th

Report

(2009-10) dealt with the matter and requested the Government to provide

an Action Taken Report, vide their letter of March 15, 2010. On October

10, 2011, the Indian Audit and Accounts Department accepted the final

version of the Action Taken Report of the Ministry of Defence.

9. Importantly, it must be pointed out that India Against Corruption has

alleged at page-4 of their communication to the PM that the involvement

of Shri. Pranab Mukherjee is interalia “apparent” in the “Scorpene scam”

as he “allowed Abhishek Verma to operate as a middle man” in the

Scorpene Project, “questions arose about the action being taken against

the civilians” and he(Shri Pranab Mukherjee) “sought to downplay by

falsely stating the leaked information was of commercial value”, that he

“did not order any investigation in the Scorpene deal despite the Outlook

Page 6 of 8

Magazine‟s detailed expose.” The action taken by the Ministry of

Defence as soon as the issue of the War Room Leak case came to light

would establish that the above allegations are blatantly false, malicious

and have been made with ulterior motives as would be evident from the

following:

a. As soon as the information of the War Room leak was received,

the Air Force and Navy conducted Court of Inquiry and Board of

Inquiry. On the basis of the Inquiry, one Air Force officer and

three Naval Officers were dismissed from service.

b. The matter was referred to CBI through a letter from the

concerned Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Defence to the

Additional Secretary in the Department of Personnel and

Training with a copy to the CBI Director in February 2006. This

was when Shri. Pranab Mukherjee was the RM. On the basis of

this reference, CBI conducted investigation and arrested

Kulbushan Prashar, Vijendra Rana, VK Jha and SL Surve in

connection with the War Room leak. Soon thereafter, Abhishek

Verma was also arrested and charge sheeted. In fact Abhishek

Verma was in Jail for more than two years.

c. It is on the basis of the reference of the case by the Ministry of

Defence to CBI that it was able to file the charge sheet against

those accused, including Abhishek Verma and the case is

pending trial in the court of ACCM.

d. Regarding the issue of enquiry into the Scorpene project, “despite

the Outlook Magazine‟s detailed expose,” it has to be stated that

the Magazine had alleged the involvement of middlemen in the

Scorpene project inextricably linking it with the War Room Leak.

However, all inquires and investigations were unable to find

evidence linking the two. This was independently concluded by

Page 7 of 8

the Naval Board of Inquiry and the CBI which had filed its report

on this issue before the High Court. The same conclusion was

also reached by the IB. In fact, Shri. Bushan, the lawyer in the

PIL, was given an opportunity by the High Court to frame the

specific issues which he wanted the CBI to look into. This was

done and yet there was no evidence that the CBI was able to find

despite its investigations, including those made overseas and

enquiries through Interpol etc.

e. As no evidence was found, CBI made direct enquires with the

Outlook Correspondent who had authored the articles in the

Outlook and the Ministry of Defence. The correspondent could

not provide any tangible evidence and even the e-mails referred

in the articles as well as in the complaint/PIL were not available

with him. He on the other hand claimed that he was only having

MS Word format of these mails.

10. The present communication from Shri Hazare and his group suffers from

serious suppression of facts. It does neither refer to nor speak of pending

litigations. This suppression itself shows the total falsity of the issues

raised.

11. The facts narrated above clearly established that all necessary inquiries

were made in the War Room leak case and establishes the following:

a. The timely action taken by the Ministry of Defence resulted in

the dismissal of Air Force and Naval officers involved in the War

Room Leak.

b. The reference made by the Ministry of Defence to the

Department of Personnel and Training and to the CBI resulted in

the detailed investigation that was conducted by the Bureau. It

resulted in the jailing of the civilians involved in the War Room

Page 8 of 8

leak case including Abhishek Verma who got bail only after two

years in prison.

c. The CBI investigation has led to the filing of charge sheet against

the accused including Abhishek Verma and the case is now on

trial in the court of ACCM.

d. The Court of Inquiry conducted by the Navy found no links

between the War Room leak case and the Scorpene Project.

e. The investigation by CBI including those undertaken overseas

into the War Room leak also revealed no link between the two

and revealed that there was no middlemen in the Scorpene

project. Even CBI‟s enquiry into all the aspects that Shri. Bushan

wanted the Bureau to investigate also revealed nothing that

vitiated the acquisition. The IB had also reached the same

conclusion.

f. The CBI had even approached the correspondent of Outlook

Magazine who had authored the two articles for evidence and he

could not produce anything tangible.

g. The material allegations made by Outlook magazine were found

to be based on non-existent facts, documents and even fabricated

documents.

h. There was neither any evidence whatsoever of any middlemen in

the Scorpene project nor any evidence of a link between the War

Room Leak and the project to warrant any further enquiry into

the acquisition that could have only delayed the induction of

critical equipment by the Navy which was already facing

crippling shortage of submarines.

12. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the allegations are false, unfair,

self-seeking, motivated, malafide and made with ulterior motive and

lacking any form of responsibility.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--DD11

Assistant

Text Box

Receipt issued by C.Edmonds Allen to Rheinmetall Air Defence, Switzerland for US$ 530,000 received by him in New York

Assistant

Text Box

Email exchanged between Rheinmetall and Ganton owned C.Edmonds Allen (New York) May 24, 2011

Assistant

Text Box

Expression of interest from Ganton India Pvt Ltd to Rheinmetall to setup Joint Venture in India for manufacturing.

Assistant

Text Box

Reply of Rheinmetall to Ganton India Pvt Ltd regarding Joint Venture in India, May 2011.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--DD22

Assistant

Rectangle

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--DD33

t

:"It{t;:i-it!

i

ffil'*" tls1. ffsl:

Dlstrict

Naw Dalhi

z. (1)

9t{I:PS:

Ac-Tlcgr

1

qild{. t

q{:Year

20re RC

qm(:Serttiom

?4[qq !

Secdons

ffiq:Sqctorrs

t {fltfi)Sec. t5l Gr'P'G') ..::'

re{: 'Sertal Nq -

2012 A0@9

'o.rr,r 05.06.?2012

qqtrfffi+,

TirneDate

fiz.i. t

07

v.sFIR

ffiiq:Mrpc

\

ffi:Day

s. (6)(a)

(€)(b)

2010-l

(tr) urivtqalryT*T;"il,, "i#A

recelveo "tt" *. no,

's. ' q6il6gl1I ptace of occurrence New Delhi

(6)(a) D ftom PS'

i

I

J '.

1iIt.litI

iI

;

I

(€) qiil:

(b) Address ''

(q) q6rer€ Er:T qr{l ffir6Kdtn]:ry - .. --[ii. ;;, ousio" the limit of his Pollce $aton' then

tffi qmtrlqrqName of PS

(e) PassPort No

(e) Erwrq(0 Profession

(6) sdr -(g) Address

qn{trrti[fiiTfii ,,

Gomplalnantllnfofna$. . .

(tF) ilI(a) Nanrq .

(s) fqilrrfidqiq ' '

iu) r.n"rt I Husbands Nante

(q) qqf&(c) Date of Birh NA

NA

..... qrfr ii q,r erq .-.....""'+"'1"Pbce of lssue '

NA

6. Source

NA

NN

Switzerlond (RAD)

(3) Other Unknown Persons

Ato

II

I

tI

N.A:

e. sTqEfi / qqd qqf{ m $ nry 3 (fi €rFt{{rr d d

Pirticulao ot ptii; fi; ofractt separate sheet lf

N.A.

1rr strfi , sqeseR t6t iF€ r[Ft :'u'

.fotat vatUe of eroPerty sblen . N.A.

tqtfilf,qi-6,: ' 311. q't I ffirq5tElr 11:j **Inquest neport i u]o' case t'b' lf dty

gqqqffifrfiol 3-

First Inionnation contents

SeBarate sheet attachPtl

q6'ItTqtli6qqt)

vqr{sqd)

A reliable source intormation has been

awarO of contract by Ordnance Factory

nneinmetall Air Defense AG of Switzerland

Revolver Gun system, it was found that M/s

gratification to in. tt'to Pi:9t-l:ti:Tl,

It is also alleged 0rat on the ofier of Sh'

;s;; ano Paio US?.5,30,000 P :l;A

ilff^L-.niln-'it'ti "d, 8E' 123 East' 54h

benaml company of Abhishek Verma operE

; ffi ir'i; uink account is-maintained

San Antonlo, Texas, USA' Th9 Pufl:aforesaid payment was lssued by M/s RAD

date of sne month from the delivety,9l:',

the said money was transferred on 17 '02'

it Ult Ganton Limited from the account of

It is further alleged that on learning about is

or fd to FrA6 for blacklistins \,1-l-1lniti;;" prepared to show the aforesaid

rontuft*cy charges paid by RAD to M/s (

of genuine business transaction'

The aforesaid fads disdce connthslcn

1988 bY Abhishek Verma 1d comml

unknown officers of M/s Rheinmetatl Air

il;il;iivestigation bv GBI in case Rc 010 A 0019.

blacklisting of

of blacklisting Pas

that in the matter of

(OFB), Kolkota to Ws

for suPPlY of 35 mm

had paid huge illegal

OFB. This was subject

person, got in toudr tPvith

of helP bY influencing th9

the process of aforeBaid

Verma, ill/s RAD

ak Verma for uslng hls

for PaYment of ltlegal

r stalling the Proceqs of

transfer to the.bank alc 'ofNew Ybrk, UgA, a

31 .05.201 O, with PaYqnent

31 .01 .20'1L Accordingly'

1 to the aforesaid a@unt

RAD at UBS' Zurich;

of the shor cduse Potice

hek Verma got back dated

;nt to be againpt the

Ltd.; to give it a colcur

otren€ uls 8' of FC Act'

of offejnce u/s 12 bY the

I

Item.No:2

6rffi d d q{ r ff svtm t**q rqir z d

qiqqrcilffiitActlon taken :Slnce the abole Inlonnator rcveals c

qru(S) I uiu'h*f qd qq{q

of ofitho{si ulsas nrnfimed at

qiqtgfui'ETook uP forlnv€sdgailort

'oorectypcoOeO and a coPYgh'sn be

cBl,AGl'New Delhi

I

(1) ffir {'+fd f6q1wi qi qiq niq Een qqa

Regls'tered Ure case ard bok up the lnvestlgaton

Regulor CoseRegistered

(2) fi{Rtd (qiq qnr+fiflrm)Directed {Narne d lO)

Shri Rom SirEh'

(3) 6Rqtfi+qlli-t{Rdrs€d InrelQflct dle b

(4) gF{s qm dt grddftil ftqt Tqt

Transbned b PS

N.A.

qFTftft I q<qlo,ai d v.t rr{ q-6rfi'( / T'ffi( g{rql

#tg ri o+qrrFild{*fi/nFqtffitdf fi:FIR Mnfunnant' admlfrBd btte d cost'

Dy.5PCBTI

Ac-rN. Delhi

i.No

tc,Rank

Ermor

fwtDBtict

\

SupdtofPnF

:1 5Book No.

1. firdt, qr{l:

District PS:

New Delhi AC-T/C9I

z. rllF :

Ac[Pc

(2) f'ttlil 'A$T Act, 2000

, - \ €rrrr\ _1., ,_ Bl,. .Act,

19ggAc!" -

Other Acts & Sections

3{cRI9 :

Suspected Offence

^.Day

1

qirdi. r

rlti : s.qq'F.Year FIR No'

2Ot2 RC LC1 ?Ot? AOOI

TI-{I(.Sections 46

rlfl,rq :

Secttc,rs 66 A.(b) (c)

KIA

ections '8

kqr6Date

2009-2010

Written

PORT (Unrler Sec' 154 Gr') tr'$.rrr.d'.-tt

s.P.E.c.ll

-.]iq fl. n tlSerial.[rlp.. Vr.'r

f<qiq':Date

o8.oB.?O12

I3 (6)

(a)

fr.r.q

(19.)

(b)

| ,t lir'1

i{{qTirrre

?r'ii -'jI -{itl 61i '5

inlormaticn receivecl ;lt PS

CgL, ACT,NewDelhi

.+Mlr-i :

F-n o.

TrTpe of Informatlon

rnt

Place of Occurrence

.I*bq,t5 Hrs.lrnl(:

-^+Z'C, t Br:at i'lo.

(.€) qil:(b) Address

Sters qrct q.l irrlName of PS

qfqdfi t :'

ComPlainant / Informant

( e'' ) :ITq '(a) Namq

.

(€) / cfr 6l qrq

(b) Fad*/s / Husband's Name

(r) qrq fafq(cJ Date of Birth Nn

QistrictNA

Shri Ajoy Moken - fhdiqs

N'n'

NA

(q) nflam :

(d) NationalitY

qr0 ........;,.......qr0 di

NA

o Formhouse 2,

Lrd

c

(r5) crs+J=i.(e) PassPort No

(q)(f) Prolession

(s)(9) Address

{qH ..-.................

Date of lssue Place lssue e

NA

NA

7. ard / {itd / 3[dtTl 7 entfl fl Wi :

Details of known / suspected / unk ccused vrith fui! particulars

i"A "=t"" a d 3rf,'rl t qqr {s'1 6i)

(Attached separate sheet' if necessary)

(1) (1) Shri Abhishak Verma 5/o Lote Srikqnt vermo R

(2) Church Rood, Vosont Kunj, New Delhi

(3) (2) Unknown off iciols of M/s ZTE -fele4om fndio

(3) Unknown off iciols of M/s Gonton Lt{ USA ond

M/s Gonton fndio Pvt Ltd.(4) Other Unkrtrown Persons

l\.rt'

ddr{ q-t)9.

N.A.

/ qcmqqfr trl gf, !$< :

of proPertY stolen N.A.

c 1.t. qti II Report / U.D. case No if anY

N.A.

Parate sheet, if required)

Seporote sheet otto hed

t

C

INFORMATION

A complaint dated 20.07.2Q12 has been rece from Shri Ajay

Maken, Minister of State (lndependent Chargel for Ycuth Affai & Sports, Govt. Of

to in The Indian

Unsigned Maken

India for investigation of the alleged unsigned letter rExpress dated 15.07.2012 titled: "Amor;g Verma Papers

Letter to PM." The complaint is reproduced as under:

Date: 20.07.2012

To

The DirectorCentral Bureau of InvestigationLodhi Road, New Delhi.

b: lnvesti ned letter referr Indian Exted 15.07.2 ers lin Unsi

Dear Sir,

1. This is to bring to your kind notice a publication':f a

Express, New Delhi edition dated 15.07.2012.

2. The news item is titled "Among V'e,'rna Pape;.s An Unsig

PM", a copy of whicn is enclosed for your reference Thipurpclrtedly stated to have been written by rne i,r legard toAbhis

inThe lndian

Maken Letter to

alleged letter isk Verma.

3. Upon reading the said news itenr and looking at the alleg

said unsigned letter, I verifled the records of nry office. After che

the office records, I have found that I have never issued anv

Prime Minister. There is no copy of the alleged letter referred to

my office records.

4 | am deeply shocked and

basis of the alleged unsigned

PM.

concerned at the allegations le

letter purported to have Deen

d contents of the

ing and verifying

uch letter to the

the news item in

at me on the

by me to the

5. The alleged unsigned letter is nothing but a false

obviously fabricated by some busy bcdy to tarnish my

reputation that I enjoy in the eyes ct the public. As I am hold

nd forged document

public and my good

an important public

office, it is my responsibility that nothing allegeci against by way of this alleged

unsigned letter containing such falsc-: and untrue allegations mained unanswered

and unverified by me

6. I request you to kindly make a :letai!ed and appropria

a responsible officer of the CBI in.o the matter of the

investigation through

of the alleged

unsigned letter purported to have been i^rriiten by me to the

Abhishek Verma, which is referred to in ttre said news item d

M in connection with

ted 15.07.2012.

7. lt is of the utrn"ost importance to keep the record of m

IPC rlw 66 A (b) & (c) of lT Act, 2000 and Section I oi pC

unblernished. Therefore, please carry out a through and com

the matter and send me a copy of the report of the same at earliest.

Thanking you,With warm regardsYours sincerely,

-sd-AJAY MAKEN

The above facts prima facie di::closed :oi'nnriss

reoutation clean and

ete investigatlon into

of offence U/s 469

1 988.

.q,rd:il qfl'n , tr$3c-tfi iq-fiq Fqi6 z i::ffi,-o qro(3il

en B-€rEd e;rdr tAction iake' : Since the above inrorm€ti,-rn ievealg ,:cr-r;mission of offItem No. 2

lrir gs'i ;aara:the irve.tigation or

t+'Rank

fnsFecrort'QI' / <.Dtr tvvLt vr lt

AC-T

N. Deihi

eirr4d qc) q-d erRrs

(s) u/s as mentioned at

qiq ?E lerqprqrTook up forinvestigation

*' anqR Tt

( r ) qrrf,r f+fa f+r+r rrqr qe qiqRegistered the case and took up

Regulor Case P.egtst ered

(2) frtRn (qiq -.Tflrorfl 6r rrq)Direcled (Name of lO)

Shri Vipin Kumor

(3) q'nur Q-tri.J * TIrr$Refused invesfiqa,{on due lo

?.No.

(q) glere wn d +ernidftn fuqr rrqrTransferred to pS

N.A.

cq 6.T E"rql s Rfr Eh;o- *lr c,ar,R.O.A C.

Snhir / {e,'{r6irf -*' 5a-rqnSignature/Thumb impressionof the cornplainanUinformant

;ar?dr€Fi *) c}.ri qr flS-{im rSi sqqDate ar.'d tirne of dcspatch lo ihe courr

t of jurisdictlon

-€-61 3rf"rFf,fud Etn

and a copy given to

eim of*m'rfr *Signature of Officer iPolice Station;iTE .,' r{arne wqni Kumor Chond)

(rff)iRank 5u of Pgl[ga

CgI,AC.T,New Delhi

( !r{-fr e{lr+rfl EFiltefl -dri,.g {{trd)Signature ol r Offlcer with date

District

3qfidfti / qr{r+Tf *l s.tr v;t rri;-rE6-{ i c6+-{ grrurr rr{il, ffiiiT+{'R B'q r Vsql q+' cftr eirfrT+rfr / qqrrs'fliq.r ti:Vf.q^rflr efiFIR read overlo the comprainanvinformant, admitted to be correctlyLhe cornplainanUinformant, free of cost.

'' I ii'i{i ;i i ;:,,,1

(ldentificaiionir4arlds)

{Crrtr

Eslit qq-fl RCY €i ?,:t , c_=.;ii(

:::::.::l-'l1ent t1l!-:1,-I :r Fii:,i rrrforn..atiorr .i

tfit-rR--

--3---fit(i{.9tJciet 1

oi i:'ir

q€llqr(Dress l-labiVs)

iol

iI

i

13

)

II

I

i

I

I

I

nir-

l;iiiiii:I

, - --.1.lrt_l| * -'r-t'I

iitlt'lll,

ilI.ltit,iii,lt:,'!

ItlIit,

II

'{i 'ii1r1 tii'.;li: ;-i,i

Endsr. No. /3/Cr/ It(A) ZOt?

Copy to:-

i1.

2.

3.

4.

(A*l I KU/vlAR CHAN5u ntendent Of police

CBI .I, New Delhi

, .. :::CIRNo.

". '~ ,

l:NFORCEMENTCAS£ INFORMATIOi" RfP QRT (fCl R,

Year Zone Date

[e!H/, ·,-/oz/2ol2/AO(PK}1 I 2012 Delhi .0&.201 2

1. \,> ,;)ture of the Scheduled Offence

r'SChedulCd Act{s) S"Cctlon{s) of TAcency'i~~tig~ti~c---" -- 1 ~ . the Act(s) scheduled offence • • i;~dian-~~I Code, 1860 .-~ . 1206 CBI, AC-I, New Oelhi-----.-.- .1 r----·--·---- .---.... . , ~.~ r.~~.~~t!?_~ .~~.~~Etion Act, 1~~.~ __ .. I!...~.!~ .... __ . __ 1 _ .. __ ...... _~ .. . d . . .... _ ••• • _ .J

3. Source frorn which informatio n/nia tNial received :

M ·I Branr;h : Central Bureau of Invesli~,lUon (CBI). New Delhi

4 . Place is ) of Occurrence: Of'lh i & '1ariou!I ol.ler Places

I)~t ;l iis 01 Suspects/r.cCLJsed with full particulllrs:

II) Shri J\bhishek Verma 5/0 late Srik;:mt Verma RIo Farm House No. 2, Church Road, vasant Kunj, New Delhi

12l Unknown officials of MIs Rheinmctall Air Defense AG of Switzerland (RAD);

(3) Other unknown persons;

6 . D~,<1 ils of properly initia ll 'l su~pecwd to li t> proceeds of crime

i,'\lt<l ch separate sheet, if necessary)

(a) Movable (" i Immovable

To be ascert~ined To be asce rtained

7. Material rcJ<ltinr, to commissiun of offence and reason to beli~vQ that an offence of mo!,;:yy' laulJdering has been committed and assessment thereof :-

-( /"""'.. This case is bp. illg n!ftisterea for commiSsion of offences u/~ 3 01 Prevention of Money

Laundering Act , 1.002 (PMlAJ, punishable u/s II of said Act.,or. t"~ basis o! information/malNial, <lS

evident from the predicate offenc:e registered by Central Ilureau of Investiga llon, New Delhi against

- th (! §,t!~very accused persons, vide RC ACl l 012 1\0009 dared 05.06.2012, which inter aliil bring out " '~ .:- ~.:: .

"f<lCIS, as under :-

•

tl; That, (Ill hild been inve!otigating on l'dllier t:il\e No. He 010 }noC) !\ OU)~: ;oIVUilllllli

v;)r~Q~~ accused pt>rsons Including the tllen Dlrecror Gem~("1. Ordnan((! Fil(tOfy Roar£!

tOFD); Ko!kata;

(ii) Thilf, during tile courSf! of investigation in the JbOlle mentioned case, COl cOfltclnploHf>f1

blacklisting of Mis Rhein1l1e tali Air Defence AG of Switl.erl<lnd (H!\l)l. with (eC<lrd to

future De fr.nce Procufements;

(iii) Tha i, while- th'""e abovl~ mentioned process of blacklisting of Mis Hhcin:ne \.lU f\ :- Od(·!II!"C

,'\G of Swinerland (KADl. was st il! In progr!,S:;, I\llhishek Vermil (A-l) \'.u\ in touell .lnd

assurt!u rhe concerned representatives of RAO that he. by inllul'n(ing thl' C:()I~G: r l1(:IJ

Public Servilnls· of Government 01 India. would Bet stalled the ':><tI{J P(OCcS~ oi

blat:kl i ~!inp, of HAD,

(iv) Th;11. In tile above context , RAO agrct:d and on 1702.2011 lIi.lrlslcrn?u frOll1 ItS 1),1111<

account with uas Zurich, Switzerland, amount of USO 5,30,000/- to the bilnk acr.Ollllt of

of Mis Gunton limi ted, Be 123 East, 5/i 'n Strect, f>Jew York, USA (a bcnilmi comoanv n f

Abllishek Verma operated by (llle C. Endmonds AJJen ot USA), in 1P M()(C'lrl Ch;)5C Q,lIIk,

San AntoniO, Texils . USA;

!vJ Thdt, on learning about ISSUt:: ollht~ SIlQVI-:ilUSC flOIICL' IIV OFI3 to HAD lor bl.1ckl i ~llIl1! II

Stir. Mlilishek Verma gOI beck dilled inVOICe preparcd to show Ihe (1fo((~!o;lId payment Ie

be ag,lInsl I he consultancy ch,lIges p,.ud by RAD 10 M/:: Ganton ltd ... 10 hive it i.l cotour

of genuine business tri.lnsact10rl .

tvii TIMI, thllS, from til e facts as disclosed above, there appeilrcu madp. a cas(~ 01

commission of offence u/s 8 of PC Act. 1988 by I\bhisltek Verma .ilft" commlssiOH o!

offence u/s 12 by the unknown officers of M/S Rheinrnet<lll Air Oefl!flCL' ,'\(1.

-Switzerland, he<sides that u/s 120-8 IPC against all the ;)cf.LJsed f)crsons .lnd as !ouch on

AOU09 Wil~ rcgi~ l {!rcd bv CHI

.'

,

.................. . . ,

~----~ . . ~~~'~ .. ~----,-------~--------------------~ . ..• :y>'" '" .. ... s,. " .,"" . '. V'

... v· .. · ~,,,,,, . . ·'v . ;;~~~~

·~._,':"'B . Offences u/s 120-S IPe and g of flC Ac: are schedulecl t'Jflenn~s under tht~ Prevention of Monev ,~",.,-

.:~; . .,Jr LilunrJering Act. :,002 (?i,·'LA.)

9. frol" the f;lCi:S and circumst<lnces, as aforemenliom)d, it <lppe{l(s (hat thQ accu~e(l pc,·;o,, '.

indlldin~; ~bl;rshek verma have by comr:nitl ing prf!dir.alc offences ;)s mentioned in the em r-!:< No. Ii(

A( l 20i. 2 A0009. have i'lloso committed offences Ills 3, of PMt A wille!) ,He pU1IIshabie u/s 4 ot th(! !.'~Id

'::'~1 ;~i\1LJ\);

10 Thu~. IflStilnl cnsc is '(L'r,istcred ullder provisions of Prevl!nliotl of Monev l.ilun'{Jering ACl, lOO;

{<:IS ~mendcdl. .Hhi tilkcn up for investir,f1t;on 8. fur\l)frr ilpproprifl l e ilction :Iguimt the ac:cu~~d

persons oS named in Col. 5 above.

Dated: lB-f)6. 2012

COllI} forw .. rdr.d to:-

( [lANKAJ l<';-IANN.C> ) ASSISTAr'JT DIRE''':TOR

.··(i} The Hon'hle Special Jlidge under PMLA, KJk,Hdoom,] (Olln~. r'i(·!w Drll" (ii) The Director, Oirector,l1e of Enforct'rneIH. N{!w Dc Ill!

iiii) (IV)

(v)

Dated: 18.06.2012

The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcemeni, New Oalh!, The Add i tional DlreClQr , OircCtOfilH.' 01 i":nloH.cment, Cr:nlf<l111c8'Ofl. N(~w D,'lh·

Guard File,

.. ~ ... ( PANRAJ J(HMM ) ASSI STANT DIRECTOR

Assistant

Text Box

CBI FIR u/s Official Secrets Act, August 2012

Assistant

Oval

Assistant

Callout

Proof that all alleged OSA violation documents were planted against Abhishek and Anca Verma by C.Edmonds Allen as none of these dox were recovered from the possession of the Verma or his wife, instead were sent to CBI and the media by Allen from New York alongwith a covering letter.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--DD44

Assistant

Text Box

Letter to DG Prisons from CBI regarding Abhishek Verma's security enhancement due to Vikki Choudhry's threats.

Assistant

Text Box

Special Commissioner Police letter to DG Prisons to increase Abhishek Verma's security in Prison on account of threats of Abhishek Verma

Assistant

Text Box

Joint Director of CBI Letter to Delhi Police regarding threats to Abhishek Verma from Ashok Aggarwal - therefore security may be redeplyoed for Verma

Assistant

Text Box

RTI FILED BY MUNNA BAJRANGI SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT ABHISHEK VERMA'S SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS IN TIHAR JAIL.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--EE11

���������������� ��������������������������������������������������� !�� �"#�$%&�

����������

���� ��� �� ����� � ������� ��� �� �� �������� ����� ��

�������� ������� ����� ������ ������� �������� � ���� ����

!�����

"�#$ %�� %��&��%��'�( )�%����� "" *�� +,-�� � -���� �� %����

"���&�����'�� ����*����

,� ���������������������������� ����� ����!����

����������.+������ �"�/�����'��� ����

)������� %���&��0� �''����� �������'�� �)������� %�

"����&,�'�����*���� � ���������� ������� ������

%����� � ��� �� ������ � �� � �� �*������ ������� ��� *�����

+������������

��'���� ���� � ���*������������� ���������

�����*������ ��������� ���( ���������� �������������'�

�������� ��������� ��������� ������� ����1������ ����� ��

������ ��� � ��������� ���(� ���� ����� �� ���� �'� ����* ������

� ��� ��� �'���� ��*���� ������ ����������� ��2��� ����� *���������

�� ���� ���������� ��� ���� �������� �� ���� ������� ����'� ����*

�� � ���������� ������������ ��2�������+,-� �� �'��� ������

����2�������*� ����

- � ���� �� �� )� ������ ��������' �� �����* �*

�������� ������� �� �������� �* ���� �'� ��'�'���� ��� +,- � ��

������ � +,- �� ���� ��'� ����' *��� ��� �'��� �� � ��

�������� ������������������ ��'������������������� )�������

�� *�� ��� ���� �� �� �� � �� �������� ���������������� �� +,-

����������� ��' �������� ���3�����*�������*�����*��� ���� ��*

�������� ����� ��������'� ��������4+�+����������5�6�*7**�����

%���� �� (���6���%������$,-"+���� ���������������� � ��� ���

��������� � � ������� ��� ����$*����'�*����'���� ������ �'� ��'

�'������ ��� �� ����� ���������*������

���������������������*�*�������� ���������� ���'��

���� ����)�%�����""��������'�������*�*+,-� - ���'��� �� ��

�������� ������������ ��2�����*������� ����'� ���� �� �'�� ��

���� �'� ����� ����� ��� �'�������� �'� ��'�'���������������'

�� ����'� ����* ��������� ����������� � �'���*� ����

,� �� � � ���( � � �������'� ����* ���� �'� ��'�'���� �

���� ����������� ���������������������� ����*���( ������������

�� �������� ������� *�� ����������' ������� �� ��� �* ������� ���

������������� ���(����� ����������������* ����� ��������*������

+,- �����,� � ��������� ��� ����������**��������'���

'��()#���#!#��*� �������++,- .��,�����

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--EE22

Assistant

Text Box

Affidavit of V.S.Rawat former advocate of Abhishek Verma. Rawat tendered this affidavit in favour of Ashok Aggarwal, February 2011

Assistant

Text Box

Affidavit of Abhishek Verma - forgery done by Ashok Aggarwal and V.S.Rawat

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--EE33

5p*cF

CHARGE, SH ET

}ttIt5,lr

ITII'

IT,I THE COURT OF

Name ofthe l.O.

Year 2012 Date 28.08.2012

30t11t2012

uls 1208 r/w 380

tuls3

{

^*er*o.*.t

-9_..t

J.J*t*.f-!l

-.tJ..t*JJ.tt€

€

eq

v

;5

& Sections

Type of Final Forsheeted for want o1

offence abated/FR I

lJ Final Report Uno rcuned - False/Mistake of facuttlistake ofLaw/Non+ognizabk /civir Nature (tick the applicable portion)

lf chargesheeted: original /srrpptementary (tick the applicable portion)

Gharge Sheet

N,A

Original

Inspector of PoliceR.S. Solanki Rank

10

(a) Name of the thl K B Nayyar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Defr nce, Govt. ofComplainanUlnform:nt India,

(b) Fathe/9Husbanc,'s Late T R NayyarName

Details of PropertieVArticles/Documents recovered/seized during the investigatrrn and reliedupon (separate list can be aftached if necessary) -

(Under Section 173 Cr.p.Cl

Ld. Chief Metropolitan

Name of CBl, FIR No Rc Ac1Bnanch AC-f, N 2012

Delhl Ao012

FinalReporUChargesheet No. n6

(i) Act t.P.c. sections

(ii) Act Official Secrets Act, Sections1923

('i') Act

(iv) OtherAcb

Separately Attached.

11(1) Particulars of accused pe=ons charge sheeted (use separate sheet for each accused)

(i)Name

(ii) Fathe/sName

(iv) Sex

(vi) PassportNo.

(vii) Religion

(ix) Occup ltion

(x) Address ::

Permanent:

Shri Abhishek Verma Whether verified

Late Shrikant rlerma (iii) Datetyear of birth

Indian

Place oflssue

Hindu (viii) whether scisT oac

Private Person

I:arm House No.2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

Mzle (v) Nationatity

F411C0j0 Date of lssue 27-07.2005

Yes

23.02.r968

Delhi

"€

,*c

*.'

{

*3)

J^t-it"{

T*sJ.3*5

-J)-,J

-E"{

€

-9*t

(xi) Provisional Criminal No.

(xii) Regular Crirninal No. (if known)

(xiv) Date of release on bail

(xvi) Under Acts & Sections

(wii) Name(s) of bailers/sureties and address

(xviii) Previous convictions with case reference

(xix) Sbtus of the accused

N/A

(xiii) Date of 04.09.2012Arrest

N/A (xv) Date on which 14.09.2012forularded to Court after

completionof PC.

Uls 1208IPC r/w sec 3 of Officlal Secrets Act 1923 and380.tPC.

, N/ANIL

In Judlcial Custody.

(Forwarded/Bailed by PolirdBailed by CourUJudicial Custody/ Absconding / Proclaimed otfender)

11(2) Pardculan of accussd penons charge sheet€d (use .separatasheet for each accused)

(i)Name Mrc Anca Marla Neacsu Whether verified YesWo Shri Abhishek Verma

@ Mrs Anca Maria Verma@ MrcAnushka Verma

D/o Mr MihailArsene (iii) Datelyear of birth 08,08.197:'(ii)FaUre/sName

(iv) Sex Female (v) Nat onality

2

Romania

P

r.7,flb

(vi) PassportNo

(vii) Retigion

(ix) Occupation

(x) Address ::

Permanent:

(xi) Provisional Criminal Nu.

(xii) Regular Criminal No. (if known)

(xiv) Date of release on bail

050270076 Date of lssue pbce oflssue

(viii) Whether SC/ST/ OBC

prlvate person

Farm House No.2, Church Road, \,asant KunJ, New Delhi

rf"fI.tat,tet,ttctt"tt"t5J*'

t€.i'

€

t

N/A

(xiii) Date bf 04.09.2012arrest

N/A (xv) Date on which 14.09.2012fonvarded to Court after

completionofPC.

()cvi) underActs & sections u/s 12oB lPc r/vv sec 3 0l otflciat secrets Act 1g23 and(:<vii) Name(s) of bairerv

380 lPc'

suretbs and address

(:oiii) Previous conviciions with case reference N/A NIL

(xix) Status of the accused ln Judiciaf Custody.(ForvarddlBailed by Potice/Bailed by couruJudicial custodyi Absconding I proclaimedoffender)

1 1(3) Pardcularr ofaccussd poruons charge sheeted (use separate sheet for each aicused)

(i) Name

(ii) Fathe/sName

(iv) Sex

(vi) PassportNo.

Wg Cdr (Ratd) Koka Rao Whether verified

Late Koka Kesava Rao

(vii) Religion Hindu (viii) whether scisr/ oBc

(ix) Occupation prfu.rte person

(x)Address :: 7, Green Meadow Farm, satbari, Mehrauri, New Delhi - 11oo14

(iii) 9atelyear of birth

Yes

22.11.1951

Male (v) Nationatity

Date of lssue

fndian

Place oflssrre

Peimanent:

Tro$.'ilO

{

{

(xi) ProvisionatCriminat No N/A

(xii) Regular Criminat No (if known; (xiii1 Date 29 j 1 2012of Arrest

(xiv) Date of rel.:ase on bait N/A (xv) Date on which 30 11.2012forwarded to Court

(xvi) Under Acts & sections l)ts 12cB lPC riw sec 3 0f ofticial secrets Act 1g23 and380 lPC.

(xvii) Name(s) cf baiters/sureties and ad Jress N/A

(xviii) Previous ( onvictions with case reference NIL

(xix) Status of ,he ar:cused

(Forwarded/Bailed by Police/Bailed by CourVJudicial Custcdy/ Abscondirtg / proctaimed offen,jer)

1(4\ Particulars of accused perso:ts charge sheeted (rrse separate sheet for each z.ccused){(i) Name M/s Ganton r6qli2 : rf Ltd. Whether verifiec

Through its Drrectci{

ta-a*{

,*9

I*€)*e,.*.

T".*9

J.J,*it*5

.o.'

.-9

"-a€

"-e

".t

Yes

(ii) Father'sName

(iv) Sex (v) Nationality

(vi) Passport Date of lssue place ofNo.

(vii) Religion

(xi) Provisional Criminal No

(xii) Regular Criminal No (if knownl

llA (iii) Date/year of birth

tssue

(viii) Wnether SC/ST/ OBC

N/A

(xiii) Date of

N/ANIL

(ix) Occupation Private Company

(x)Address :: Farm House No 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhr

Permanent :

Arrest

1xivl OJte of release on bail N/A (xv) Date on whichforwarded to Court

(xvi) UnderActs & Sections U/s 1l?0B IPC rtw sec 3 of Official Secrets Act 1923 and380 tPC.

(xvii) Name(s) of bailers/sureties and address

(xviii) Previous cunvictions wrth case reference

rtt

rIi.oiI

(xix) Status of t,re accused

(Forwarded/Bailed hy polirre/Bailed by couruJudicial custody/ Absconding / proclaimed offender)

l2(1) Par0culars of accused persons not charge shee.'ed (usa separrate sheet for each accused)

(i) Name NILWhether veriiied

(iif Fahe/sl{ame

(iit) Datelyear of birth

(tv) Sex (v) Nationati+.

(vi) Passport No. .Date of tssue place oflssue

(vii) Religion (viii) Whether SC/ST/ OBG

(ix) Occupation

(x) Address ::

Permanent

Present

aaooaaaaaottoNrlttt

(xi) Provisionat C'iminat No.

(xii) Suspkt'on approved lyes/No)

(xii) Shtus of he accused

Whether Verifieci

a (Fomarded/tsall€dty Potice/tsailed s co'ruJudicial r siody/Absonding / proctaimed offender)

€ (xiv) UnderAcb & Sec.tions

"t (xv) Any special remarks inr,luding reasons for not charge ,Illilgt{ 13 (i) Particulars of witnesses tr be examined (Attach separate sheet, if required).

{

"|)t

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--FF11

Assistant

Text Box

Complaint against Ashok Aggarwal and V.S.Rawat advocate for forging Abhishek Verma's affidavit - praying for registration of FIR

Assistant

Text Box

Abhishek Verma's complaint against Ashok Aggarwal and V.S.Rawat for forging his affidavit, praying for registration of FIR for forgery etc.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--FF22

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--FF33

Assistant

Text Box

Acknowledgement from Prime Minister Office received by Abhishek Verma in regards complaint against SSP CBI Ramnish Geer, Ashok Aggarwal, C.Edmonds Allen and others.

Assistant

Text Box

Complaint of Abhishek Verma against SSP CBI Ramnish Geer, Ashok Aggarwal and C.Edmonds Allen to Home Minister of India

Assistant

Text Box

Complaint of Abhishek Verma to Prime Minister of India against SSP CBI Ramnish Geer, Ashok Aggarwal and C.Edmonds Allen

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--FF44

IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)SHRI V.K. MAHESHW ARI, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CBI VIS ASHOK AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

FIR: RC-SIU-8-E-000lu/s 467, 471 r/w 120B IPCNDOH: 14thJanuary 2013

APPLICATION SEEKING DIRECTIONS TO THE CBI FORINVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION OF A FIR UNDER

APPROPRIATE SECTIONS & FOR CANCELATION OF ASHOKAGGARWAL'S BAIL

Most respectfully showeth,

1. That, the Applicant was granted tender of pardon by the court

of ASJ Shri S.L. Khanna Tis Hazari Courts in the aforementioned

case as an Approver of the CBI on ih September 2001, against a

corrupt, disgraced and dishonest IRS officer Ashok Aggarwal

(former Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate - Delhi Zone).

2. That, the Applicant deposed against Ashok Aggarwal u/s 164

IPC on 2nd December 1999 in the aforesaid case of CBI. The trial in

the said case is presently stayed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court of

India since Applicant's status as an Approver was challenged by

accused Ashok Aggarwal in Delhi High Court who had passed an

order in August 2007 and against this order of the High Court the

CBI filed an SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court.

3. That, one Virendra Singh Rawat was the advocate for the

Applicant in the abovementioned case from July 1999 till September

2008. The Applicant removed V.S.Rawat from all of his cases

including the present one in September 2008 due to professional

misconduct, consistent extortion and blackmail by V.S.Rawat.

Complete facts of Rawat's unethical behavior are contained In

Applicant's complaint of January 18, 2011 addressed to the Bar

Council of India attached as Annexure-A colly.

4. That, accused Ashok Aggarwal filed an additional affidavit in

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in November 2012 in the

aforementioned SLP. To utter shock and surprise of the Applicant

pages 63 to 67 of the additional affidavit of Ashok Aggarwal

contained a photocopy of an affidavit executed by Virendra Singh

Rawat in the matter of CBI vis Ashok Aggarwal (SLP 7266 of 2007)

copy of which is duly flagged as Annexure-B colly with this

application.

r?l

The contents of the affidavit are in favor of Ashok Aggarwal. The

language and the chain of events mentioned therein are false and

baseless and have been narrated at accused Ashok Aggarwal's

instructions in order to spoil the case of the CBI and to mislead

Hori'ble Court(s) and to frustrate the trial.

Page 71 of the said Affidavit flagged as Annexure-C colly filed by

V.S.Rawat is the copy of the vakalatnama executed in his favour by

the Applicant authorizing Rawat as his counsel.

Page 72 of the said Affidavit flagged as Annexure-D colly filed by

Rawat is a forged document that V.S. Rawat has claimed in his

Affidavit that Applicant purportedly issued October iz", 2007 in

favour of Ashok Aggarwal.

5. That, the Applicant brought the aforementioned matter to the

knowledge of the CBI vide his letter dated zs" December 2012

attached with this application.

6. That, the conspIracy hatched between accused Ashok

Aggarwal, IRS and Virendra Singh Raw at, advocate by usmg a

forged affidavit of the Applicant is highly deplorable and they have

committed cognizable crimes of forgery, breach of trust, using forged

documents as genuine ones and conspiracy - committed by an officer

of the Indian Revenue Service and a practicing Advocate of the Bar

who had earlier represented the Applicant as his counsel.

7. That, accused Ashok Aggarwal has violated conditions of his

bail by tampering with evidence and influencing the trial, therefore

his bail is liable to be cancelled and accused Ashok Aggarwal should

be remanded to judicial custody.

PRAYER

a) .CBI be directed to investigate into the aforementioned

complaint of the Applicant and register a case of forgery, breach of

trust and conspiracy against Ashok Aggarwal and Virendra Singh

Rawat and unknown others.

b) Hon'ble Court may pass an order for cancelation of Ashok

Aggarwal's bail.

c) . Pass any other directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

Applicant

Abhishek Vermas/o Late Shrikant Verma

(in Judicial Custody)Jail 4, Tihar Prisons

New Delhi

r41

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--GG11

Assistant

Oval

Assistant

Oval

Assistant

Oval

Assistant

Oval

Assistant

Oval

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--GG22

Assistant

Text Box

Legal notice to Times of India sent by advocate of Abhishek Verma for running defamatory stories on TV.

Assistant

Text Box

Reply received from Times Now TV

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--GG33

Assistant

Text Box

Cover letter - forwarding complaint of Abhishek Verma against Vikki Choudhry and Ashok Aggarwal for criminal intimidation and other sections of IPC 30th March 2013

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--GG44

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377 Page 1

The Director Central Bureau of Investigation CGO Complex New Delhi

3rd March 2013

Respected Sir,

I am taking the liberty of approaching you once again to follow up on the action taken in

regards my earlier complaint dated 23rd January 2013 against SSP AC-1 branch of the CBI

Shri Ramnish Geer.

Shri Raminsh is continuing his tirade against me & my wife as he is now working solely for

the benefit of Ashok Aggarwal, IRS former Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate

against whom I am the Approver of the CBI.

Attached, is an extremely defamatory newsarticle published in the Times of India dated the

3rd of March 2013 wherein the source of the story is attributed to “a CBI official who was

investigating Verma.” Shri Ramnish was the I/O in two of my cases (RC-SIU8-1999-E-0001

against Ashok Aggarwal and ACU-IX-2006/2A titled Navy War Room Leak Case). The

author of the said newsarticle Shri Abhinav Garg has written that the official who “was”

investigating Verma, thereby implying it is Shri Ramnish. Thus the source is none other than

Shri Ramnish who spoke to the Times of India in the most derogatory language and leaked

details of the investigation in Rheinmetal Air Defense case RC-AC1-2012-0009 thereby

influencing t he investigation and p rejudicing the minds of the judiciary.

This is not the only instance wherein attempts were made by Shri Ramnish to prejudice the

judiciary and decimate my reputation which is already in shards.

Right from June 2012 when CBI first arrested my wife and me, since then Shri Ramnish

systematically leaked stories to the press/media. In my letter of 23rd January 2013 addressed

to your goodself, I had mentioned how Shri Ramnish used to call mediapersons to his cabin

in front of me and my wife (during our CBI custody remand on 3 occasions totaling 27 days)

and leaked stories and photos of us. I am attaching news clippings from the past that quote

“reliable sources of the CBI” or “a senior officer of the CBI”. Effectively the source of these

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377 Page 2

stories was not the official spokesperson of the CBI but a mole in the CBI working for

personal benefit and influencing the investigation(s) and the judiciary.

Shri Ramnish is definitely the source of all these engineered leaks. One of my lawyers Shri

Gaurang Kanth’s brother Shri Prityush Kanth is the Business Editor of Times of India

New Delhi. On one of the visits to Tihar Jail in June-July 2012 Gaurang Kanth specifically

mentioned to me that Shri Ramnish had been leaking information to Times of India and

Times Now reporters about my cases.

These acts of Shri Ramnish are highly deplorable. A departmental enquiry should be initiated

against the officer and his links with Ashok Aggarwal and the call detail records of Shri

Ramnish be extracted from June 1, 2012 till date and he should be asked to explain why he

has been in touch with the press persons when he was not author ized to do s o.

Further, it is humbly requested that the enquiry should cover all aspects of these leaks and the

call detail records of all other officers of AC-1 branch should be examined to validate if any

other officer were also involved and if so action should be taken against all erring officers.

It is also suggested that the authorized spokesperson of the CBI should be the only one to

br ief the media pe rsons about the status of various cases (but not about the details of the

investigation); any other officer indulging in information leaks to the press should face

departmental action.

With high regards,

Yours truly,

Abhishek Verma Jail# 4, Tihar Prison New Delhi 110064 Enclosed: As above.

RC No. AC112012t1A0012

P.S CBI/AC- 1 /Nerry Delhi

Uis 120-B read with Section 380 IPC & 3 O.S Act.

CBI Vs. Abhishekr Verma Etc.

22.04.13

ORDER

Vide this order, I shall decide all the five pending applications moved on

behalf of accuse'd no. 1 to 3. Argufnents on all the said applications have

already been heard, on behalf of both the sides. I have also considered the rival

submissions made on behalf of both ttlre sides as well as the authorities cited at

the bar.

Before referring to the applicatiorfrs under consideration, it is appropriate to

discuss in brief tlhe facts of the prespnt case which are relevant for deciding

those applications;, The present case qvas registered on 28.08.2012 on the basis

of complaint received from Ministry of pefense, Government of India to the effect

that certain secret information and dopuments of different wings of Ministry of

Defense was disseminated by the afcused persons as well as unauthorised

officials of M/s Garnton Limited and unQuthorised officials of Ministry of Defense.

he course of investigation, it was revealed that accused obtained

lj ; . /secret information/document$ in pursuance to preplanned conspiracy

and communicated the same to som{ unauthorised persons including foreign;

c612

Now, lshall deal with the application dt.08.03.13 moved by

applicant/accused namely Abhishek Verma seeking direction to CBI from

restraining itself to furnish, leak or provide any information or document to any

other person except the Court in the present case. lt has been argued by Ld

counsel for the applicanVaccused that false case has been registered by CBI

against applicant on the basis of press release and information provided by Mr.

C. Edmens Allan and his accomplice namely Mr. Arjun Arora. Ld counsel

submitted that CBI is leaking out relevant information relating to investigation of

this case to Media which may subject the applicantiaccused to "Media Trial"

thereby causing prejudice to him. He further argued that it is the duty of

investigating agency to complete the investigation in utmost secrecy and to

refrain itself from leaking out relevant information and record in criminal case. ln

this regard, he relied upon the judgment delivered in the matter titled as " Smt.

Vimal Ashok Thakare & Anr. Vs. Incharge Police Station Officer Nagpur &

Ors." 2011 Cr.LJ 139. Ld counsel also referred to the photocopies of various

newspaper clippings annexed with the application in support of the aforesaid

submission.

On the other hand, the submissions made on behalf of CBI were

twofold. The first limb of argument raised on behalf of CBI had been that there

was no disclosure/leakage of information regarding investigation of present case

ViDi'A Pel\i13 Cl',4M (Cunttii)

Tis Hazari cour

to any person including media from the side of CBl, as claimed

applicant/accused. In this regard, Ld. Special Prosecutor of CBI re

copies of newspaper clipping filed alongwith application in su

contention that information contained therein do not show that any in

which may prejudice the investigation or may affect the applicant/accu

been disclosed th,erein.

The s,econd limb of argument raised on behalf of CBI is

never intended to show/ disclose/furnish lleak out any such informatio

may effect the applicant/accused or any other accused involved in this

any information wlhich may prejudice the investigation of this case.

After giving my anxious consideration to the respectful su

made on behalf of both the sides and the material available on record,

of the view that pnesent case is not an ordinary case. Rather, there are

allegations levalled against accused who are alleged to have procured

documents as well as information which are claimed to be sensitive in n

per the case of C13l, disclosing said information or contents of those do

to any unauthorised person, may prejudicial to the safety and interes

State. Thus, it is appropriate that material information relating to the i

,;!)-: o *thp,'iRi"e is not made public or is disclosed to any person including

i- '- i,' it,

Accordingl$, it is hereby directed that the relevant and material info

r'rQ il

No.38Delhi

by the

to the

of his

ation

, has

at CBI

which

or

issions

rt is

US

certain

.As

nts

of the

igation

media.

Vi DYA i; € 14,:1\:i'-:, iCMi'l (d.rrii,'i) ,{,rcnr i''i". "'.

Ti.s i"iazeri oourt, Delhr

related to the investigation of the present case is not made public and the

investigating agency i.e. CBI refrains itself from leaking out or furnishing

information regarding the investigation carried out so tar or about further

investigation which is still going on in this case, to any person including media.

With these directions, the application in hand stands disposed off accordingly.

Now, I shall deal with the application dated 25.03.2013 moved by

applicanVaccused namely Anca Maria. The detailed reply to the said application

has been filed on record.

It is claimed in the application that summons issued to accused no. 4

i.e M/s Ganton India Pvt. Ltd. for 11.12.2012, had been received by Sh. Vicky

Chaudhary who also appeared before the Court on 11.12.2012 but claimed that

he had no authorisation to represent the said company. The applicanVaccused

herself advanced the arguments on the present application by submitting that

misrepresentation was made before the Court on behalf of CBI through its

Special Prosecutor. The applicant/accused submitted that Sh. Vicky Choudhary

is one of the active Directors of accused no. 4 company which is managed and

controlled by him. She further argued that Sh. Vicky Choudhary owns majority

of the shares of accused no. 4 company but said information was deliberately

concealed from the Court. She argued that summons issued to accused no. 4

company, had been duly received by accused Vicky Choudhary as its Director

L4

1_8

finding no ground to allow the prayer made in the application, same is hereby

dismissed with no order as to cost.

(Vidya Prakash)

CMM(Gentral)Delhi

22.04.2013

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--HH11

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377 Page 1

Mrs. Seema Pahuja, Inspector Special Crimes-1 Branch (SC-1) Central Bureau of Investigation Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003

18th March 2013

Subject: Assisting investigations of the CBI in RC-SI-1-2012-S-0013 of 19 Sept 2012

Madam,

Concerning the above mentioned FIR being investigated by you in which I have been named as an accused – I

would like to bring to your kind notice certain facts and submit documents to assist you in the investigation in

regards the source and the identity of the forger of the questioned letter of Shri Ramnish Sr.Supdt. of CBI AC-1

Branch.

Claxton Edmonds Allen an attorney from New York in conspiracy with one Ashok Aggarwal IRS officer

forged the letter of Shri Ramnish for the reasons enumerated below:

1. I am an approver of the CBI court against Ashok Aggarwal in a case of corruption since the year 1999

(RC-SIU-8-1999-E-0001). Since the inceptions of the said case Shri Aggarwal tried to influence and

threaten me, as a result of which, I was granted ‘Y’ category police protection at the recommendation

of the CBI for 7 years. You may be able find over 2 dozen complaints filed by the undersigned

against Ashok Aggarwal between the years 1999 and 2013 in the records of SIU-8 branch.

2. I got to know about the existence of the forged letter of Shri Ramnish from reliable journalists who

attended the press conference on 26th April 2012 organized by Shri Arvind Kejriwal former IRS

officer (close friend of Ashok Aggarwal). Thereafter I obtained a copy of the documents circulated by

Shri Kejriwal at this press conference held at the behest of Ashok Aggarwal and C.Edmonds Allen

with the sole purpose of implicating me in frivolous cases by misleading the CBI and Enforcement

Directorate. The forged letter was annexed at pages 95, 96 and 97 of the attached bunch of documents

released by Shri Kejriwal to the media. These are being submitted for your kind perusal along with

this letter. I was in Escorts Hospital for angioplasty from 22nd April till 30th of April 2012 and on bed-

rest the entire month of May 2012.

3. On 2nd of June 2012, I filed a criminal case u/s 389, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 500 of IPC

and 66A, 66C, 66D, 66F of Information Technology Act read with 120B IPC against C. Edmonds

Allen and his business partner in India one NRI Arjun Arora (who was a school friend of mine from

1980’s). The said complaint was filed in the court of Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate Mrs.Suyra Malik

Grover, Saket District Courts, New Delhi and the Ld MM was pleased to take cognizance on the said

complaint on the 4th of June 2012.

4. It is important to mention here that the forged letter of Shri Ramnish was one of the several

documents that were a part of my complaint against Allen & Arora - filed before Ld MM Mrs Grover

at Saket Courts on 2nd June 2012.

5. On the 7th of June 2012 morning when CBI raided my residence 2,Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New

Delhi in connection with a CBI FIR (RC-2012-AC1-0009) - Shri Ramnish was also present between

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377 Page 2

7.30am and 10.30am along with the other officers of the CBI. In presence of my wife, I brought this

matter to his knowledge that, “I had filed a complaint of forgery in the Saket Court against Allen &

others and the forged letter of his (Shri Ramnish) is also a part of the complaint.”

6. Thereafter during my CBI custody remand along with my wife Anca Verma from 8th of June till 21st

June 2012 at my instructions, one of my lawyers who was authorized by the Court to visit us daily

between 4pm and 6pm submitted a photocopy of the entire set of the aforementioned complaint along

with its annexures to the I/O Shri Ramsingh at the AC-1 branch.

7. Allen and Aggarwal are in touch with Prashant Bhushan Senior Advocate who is a close associate

of Arvind Kejriwal. They jointly run Parivartan Trust and both persons formerly known as

members of Team Anna. (Please refer to emails exchanged between Allen and Prashant Bhushan in

April 2012 – pages 98 and 106 of my attached complaint to Saket Court).

8. Prashant Bhushan is the same person who had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in March 2006

against Union of India & others – seeking directions of the Delhi High Court to register a FIR against

Public Officials and the undersigned to investigate Scorpene Submarines purchase of the Indian Navy

& the allegations of bribes paid through the undersigned. Prashant Bhushan had annexed certain

forged and fabricated emails as evidence. Those emails as claimed by Prashant Bhushan were

purportedly written/sent by the undersigned. The CBI registered a P.E. and the I/O (of this P.E.) Shri

Ramnish investigated the allegations leveled by Prashant Bhushan and submitted to the Delhi High

Court a confidential report, parts of which were read out in the open court by the Chief Justice

sometime in 2008. It was observed by court that, “the questioned emails were not authenticated after

detailed enquiry with the French Government and appeared to be fabricated. No bribes were paid as

confirmed by the French Government and the manufacturer Thales”. The court also observed that the

bank remittances to Shri Verma were not connected to the Scorpene deal / Thales the manufacturer. I

was exonerated by the Delhi High Court. This was widely reported in the media. Newsarticles to this

effect are still available on the net.

Even though I was exonerated by the Court after detailed investigations by the CBI, the petitioner

Prashant Bhushan continued to harass the undersigned, the CBI and falsely alleged that the CBI was

acting hand-in-glove with the undersigned to cover up allegations of bribery in the Scorpene deal

allegedly paid to senior political leaders routed through the undersigned. This campaign against was

fuelled by Ashok Aggarwal who was forging documents/emails and guiding Prashant Bhushan all

along through his longtime friend Arvind Kejriwal.

9. When Allen+Arora and the undersigned fell out towards the end of October-November 2011 over a

dispute in NOIDA 100 acres land for township (TS-3 Yamuna Expressway), Allen got in touch with

Ashok Aggarwal through Arjun Arora who was at the time based in Delhi. An enemy’s enemy is a

friend, thus Aggarwal guided Allen how to create forgeries to implicate the undersigned & my wife in

multiple false cases by misleading the CBI and ED.

10. Aggarwal introduced Allen to his longtime friend and lawyer Ram Jethmalani MP and Jethmalani

wrote a letter of complaint to the then Director of Enforcement Directorate on 7th February 2012. The

said letter is annexed on page 51 of the complaint filed in Saket Court. Please note that the last

paragraph of Jethmalani’s letter states, “The enclosed correspondence and papers point to the

notorious Abhishek Verma a protected favourite of the CBI and powerful politicians. He seems

involved in ownership of US$205,000,000. Mr.Allen will be willing to help in the investigation if

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377 Page 3

necessary by coming to India and providing ocular and documentary evidence. I write this as a

citizen and a responsible Member of Parliament.” Alongwith the above mentioned documents to the

Director Enforcement, Jethmalani annexed the forged letter of Shri Ramnish.

11. Ram Jethmalani misled the Director ED by suppressing that he was infact the lawyer for Ashok

Aggarwal against whom I am an approver of the CBI since 1999 and Jethmalani has been

representing Aggarwal regularly in trial court, High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court as at present

my approver status is under challenge by accused Ashok Aggarwal. The SLP is still pending before

the Chief Justice of India and the trial court proceedings have been stayed.

There are 543 MPs in Lok Sabha and 232 in Rajya Sabha. Out of 776 MPs in Indian Parliament, why

is it that Allen got in touch with only Ram Jethmalani, who conveniently wrote a complaint two days

later to the Director Enforcement “…as a citizen and a responsible Member of Parliament.”

12. Contrary to Jethmalani’s letter of 7th Feb 2012 to the Director Enforcement – Allen has refused to

come to India for being examined by the CBI nor did he allow the officers of the CBI and

Enforcement Directorate to seize the original hard-disk of his personal computer when they visited

New York in October 2012. Instead Allen handed over to the ED officers doctored emails (e-formats)

and fabricated documents to mislead the investigators. If Allen is such an honest person as he is

portrays himself to be – then why does he not join investigation in India and submit himself to the

jurisdiction of the Indian agencies and courts?

13. If Allen had in his possession of the questioned letter of Shri Ramnish since 14th July 2009 (as per his

email trailers appearing on page 104 of my complaint to Ld MM Saket), why on earth was he quiet

for 2 years and 10 months and started complaining to the ED, CBI, Ram Jethmalani and Prashant

Bhushan only in February 2012 onwards? This proves that the emails were backdated electronically

by changing time and date of the sender & receiving PCs and by changing a IP address using an IP

changer software. The questioned documents were forged by Allen and others only after the disputes

arose over NOIDA real estate deal. They tried to connect me again to the Scorpene deal because the

contents of the forged letter page 2 clearly mention the name of Thales (manufacturer) and Scorpene

(submarines).

14. Prashant Bhushan utilized this forged letter once again to prejudice the judiciary and submitted this

forged document in the year 2012 to the concerned bench of Delhi High Court in the proceedings of

the aforementioned PIL seeking re-investigations in the Scorpene deal. Bhushan also held several

press conferences opposing the Presidential candidature of His Excellency Shri Pranab Mukherji in

July-August 2012 while leveling extremely defamatory allegations against him since Shri Mukherji

was the Defence Minister in 2005 when Scorpene deal was signed.

15. Ram Jethmalani and Ashok Aggarwal have carried a grudge against the CBI since 1999. Aggarwal

filed nine frivolous cases against the CBI officers & a former Joint Director of CBI investigating his

cases. Aggarwal even put a supari on the life of these officers due to which three of the CBI officers

& former Jt.Director received round the clock Delhi Police protection from August 2001 till 2005-

2006, including Shri Ramnish.

16. Ashok Aggarwal compromised one of my former lawyers Virendra Singh Rawat and together they

forged an affidavit with my signatures to be used in Aggarwal’s defense in the Supreme Court of

India. Aggarwal brazenly filed the said forged affidavit in the SLP challenging my Approver status.

When I got to know sometime in November 2012 as I received a set of documents from SC registrar,

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377 Page 4

I immediately complained to the Joint Director CBI seeking registration of a FIR against Aggarwal &

Rawat for forgery and for tampering with evidence (copy attached). I also filed an application in

January 2013 for cancellation of Ashok Aggarwal’s bail in the court of CBI Judge ASJ VK

Maheshwari, Tis Hazari Courts. The said application is pending consideration.

17. C.Edmonds Allen & Aggarwal conspired to forge the questioned letter in order to frame me in yet

another case of the CBI. Further the tone of Allen’s email and Jethmalani’s letter allege that,

“Abhishek is protected by the CBI”, which is not true at all as I am facing 7 cases of the CBI

including this one, and all such false allegations are malicious attempts of Allen and Aggarwal in

order to antagonize the officers of your department.

You are requested to please investigate the points as mentioned above as well as consider the conduct of

C.Edmonds Allen & others. Please investigate thoroughly all aspects since my wife and I are victims of a

conspiracy hatched by Allen & others. We have nothing to do with the questioned letter; rather, I am the one who

filed a criminal case against Allen for forgery of the same last year in June.

Further, it would not be out of place to mention here that my wife Anca Verma and I are keen to join

investigations and that is why we both applied to the Court of Ld CMM Tis Hazari courts to surrender in the

aforementioned FIR in October 2012 however your department declined to arrest us.

As my wife Anca Verma and I both are keen to be examined by CBI to prove our innocence and to shed light on

all the aspects of the conspiracy hatched by Allen & Aggarwal and in order to assist in your investigations…. you

may please arrest both of us in the above mentioned FIR, to be examined in custody of the CBI. Alternatively,

you may please record our statements tendered voluntarily in Jail 4, and examine Anca at Jail 6 Tihar Prisons.

Assuring you of our cooperation in advance,

Yours truly,

Abhishek Verma Jail 4, Tihar Prisons New Delhi 110064

CC: Director, Central Bureau of Investigations, CBI HQ, New Delhi

Attached: As above.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--HH22

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377 Page 1

The Director Central Bureau of Investigation CBI Headquarters CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi

5th April 2013

Re: Investigations against Abhishek Verma and others

Respected Sir,

Concerning the investigations against my wife Anca Verma and I in the following cases:

RC-AC1-2012-A-0009 (AC-1 branch: I.O. Addl.SP Ram Singh) RC-AC1-2012-A-0011 (AC-1 branch: I.O. Insp Vipin Kumar) RC-AC1-2012-A-0012 (AC-1 branch: I.O. Insp Rajesh Solanki) RC-SI-1-2012-S-0013 (SC-1 branch: I.O. Insp Seema Pahuja)

I hereby submit alongwith this letter, six hatemails/sadistic threats received at my Tihar Jail address in the past few months from Claxton Edmonds Allen of New York (hereinafter referred to as CEA).

Since early 2012 CEA has been misleading the CBI that I was using an email address ‘evaherzigova@gmail.com’ and an alias ‘Eva Herzigova’ to communicate with him to pass on defense secrets in violation of OSA Act and engage in shady defense deals that breach Prevention of Corruption Act under investigation by AC-1 branch of the CBI.

Enclosed are high resolution color scan copies of the hatemails sent by CEA. The originals can be made available for the inspection, analysis and testing by the I/Os of CBI and CFSL labs to prove our innocence.

There are a total of six separate hatemails sent by CEA and with each document I have attached the colour scan of the relevant envelope. The enclosed analysis was prepared by our lawyers and experts with information & contradictions relevant to those documents.

It is pertinent to mention here that all the hatemails were posted from NY postcode ‘10022’ (the same as the office of CEA) however in one of the six hatemails the sender’s address label on top was mischievously printed and pasted as “Eva Herzigova Farmhouse 2 Church Road, Vasant Kunj New Delhi, INDIA” (my residence address) and this envelope was also received at my Tihar Jail No.4 address. Inside that particular envelope were two photos of famous supermodel Eva Herzigova and inscribed on those photos (in CEA’s handwriting which has been compared with the note written at the bottom of the statement tendered before you in NY in October 2012) “ABHISHEK you’ve made me so famous. Tx, Eva”. The second photo of the supermodel Eva Herzigova contains inscription in the same handwriting “AV all my love, Eva”.

My wife and I have been stating all along to the CBI (and the Enforcement Directorate), that we have nothing to do with the alias ‘Eva Herzigova’ or the email address evaherzigova@gmail.com and these are professional forgeries done by CEA in order to falsely implicate us.

CEA to derive sadistic pleasure out of our misery of languishing in jail for past 10 months due to false evidence & fabricated documents tendered by him that relate to Eva Herzigova alias and emails, he now sent at my Tihar Jail No.4 address, the above mentioned hatemails and in particular, the one with ‘Eva Herzigova’ photos as a brazen threat to show how he framed us and shall continue to do so.

Reading between the lines, these hatemails reflect CEA’s criminally devious state of mind while validating our stand about evidence planted on us by CEA.

These forged documents originated from evaherzigova@gmail.com email address are a part of my criminal complaint case in Saket Court against CEA and Arjun Arora filed on 2nd June 2012 much

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# 011-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377 Page 2

before the registration of CBI and ED case(s) in June/July 2012. The Hon’ble Court took cognizance of my complaint on the 4th of June 2012 and Court process against CEA and Arjun Arora is underway.

The statement tendered by CEA before Enforcement Directorate’s Assistant Director Mr.Pankaj Khanna in NY sometime in October 2012 u/s PMLA has been annexed by the CBI in the chargesheet u/s OSA Act filed on 30th November 2012 (RC-AC1-2012-A-0012) against my wife and me. Further, Mr. Khanna has been cited as a witness the said case of the CBI as Mr.Khanna recorded CEA’s statement in NY.

A great travesty of justice would occur if the CBI continues to rely upon CEA’s false evidence. Therefore, we beg you to:

a) Order CFSL analysis in regards the six hatemails attached.

b) Initiate appropriate legal proceedings against CEA for misleading the CBI and for tendering false evidence.

c) Declare CEA as an unreliable source of Information and in future CBI does not rely on the fabricated documents planted by him, rather CEA should be made an accused in all the cases since he was the owner of Ganton Ltd USA and Director in Ganton India Pvt Ltd (both are accused companies in the above mentioned cases of the CBI).

We have high hopes that under your leadership that the CBI will conduct fair and unbiased REINVESTIGATION in light of the above mentioned developments and present its findings to the your goodself and the Hon’ble Courts so that our innocence may be proved.

Thanking you,

Yours truly,

Abhishek Verma Tihar Jail No.4 New Delhi 110064

Enclosed: As above.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--HH33

Assistant

Text Box

Abhishek Verma's letter to Director CBI exposing the nexus between SSP CBI Ramnish Geer, Ashok Aggarwal, C.Edmonds Allen and the PMO

Assistant

Text Box

Complaint of Abhishek Verma against Ramnish Geer SSP CBI and Ashok Aggarwal and C.Edmonds Allen with details of their nexus.

Assistant

Text Box

Abhishek Verma's complaint to Director CBI against Ramnish Geer SSP CBI who was leaking information about the investigation to the press/media.

Assistant

Text Box

C.Edmonds Allen email to PTI Correspondent Abhishek Shukla which was mistakenly sent to Abhishek Verma. In this email Allen is seen to be planting stories against Abhishek Verma & Anca.

Assistant

Text Box

Press quoted C.Edmonds Allen as the source of secret OSA dox thus Allen is guilty of possession and unauthorized transmission of secret dox in breach of Official Secrets Documents.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--HH44

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# +91-11-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377

Shri Ranjit Sinha, IPS Director Central Bureau of Investigation CBI Head Quarters, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi 18th June 2013 Respected Sir, This is to inform you that I am presently lodged in Tihar Jail# 4 in connection with some false and motivated cases against me and my wife Anca-Maria Verma which are presently under investigation by the AC-I unit/Branch of the CBI. You may recall that I had earlier lodged complaints on the 23rd of January 2013; the 3rd of March 2013 and the 14th of May 2013 with your office against Shri Ramnish Geer, SSP of the CBI posted in AC-I unit/Branch who was the IO of some of the cases against me. Vide the said complaints I had informed the CBI in regards corrupt practices and misconduct of Shri Ramnish. The same officer had conspired with an accused Ashok Aggarwal, IRS against whom I am an Approver of the CBI in RC-SIU-8-1999-E-0001 and launched acts of personal vendetta against me and my family due to which I was implicated in false cases of the CBI. Recently, I have learnt from extremely reliable sources that one Sub Inspector of CBI, AC-I unit Shri Rajiv Ranjan has been snooping around the Tihar Jail premises regarding me and my wife, lawyers, family/friends and people who come to meet me and to collect other such information from the visitors/relatives of other inmates of Jail No 4. Shri Ranjan is brazenly snooping around as he is introducing himself as the CBI officer and flashing his identity card in order to coax the visitors to cough up with information about me. It is known that Sh Rajiv Ranjan, SI/CBI is under Sh Ramnish, SSP/CBI and reports to him directly. This has resulted in my friends and family members feeling unduly threatened for their safety and well being. They now fear of being embroiled in yet another false and malicious case which may be foisted on them by CBI. I would like to bring to your kind notice that Sh Ramnish/SSP appears to have initiated such a vitiated and malafide spying against me after I sent a complaint against him, as referred above, to the Home Minister of India who duly forwarded it to the MoS for DoPT (vide diary# 1213/MOS(PP) dated 10.05.2013) who in turn referred the matter to CVC for conducting an enquiry against Sh Ramnish. Subsequently, I had also sent a RTI application last week to AC-I Branch, CBI seeking disclosure of certain information about the financial details pertaining to Sh Ramnish, which could no longer be withheld under the exemption clauses covering the CBI under the RTI Act. Along with this application, I had enclosed the copies of the letters received from DoPT. Immediately after the AC-I branch received this application, snooping around commenced. In this regard, it is requested that I may be informed whether Sh Rajiv Ranjan, Sub Inspector has been officially deputed by the CBI for conducting any enquiry about me from Tihar Jail premises, in the last 3 days?

Abhishek Verma

Farmhouse# 2, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 * Tel# +91-11-26138277 * Fax# +91-11-26138377

If yes, whether his SSP, Sh. Ramnish has taken his senior formation of the CBI in confidence in writing, as is expected in your organization or he is doing it on his own and has gone rogue? If yes, whether Sh Rajiv Ranjan is maintaining a record of the enquiry in the form of GD entries and Case Diaries/ supplementary Case Diaries? In case Sh Rajiv Ranjan denies having visited Tihar Jail in the past three days, his mobile tower location will reveal the truth. As there are four false and motivated cases going on against me, which involve other high ranking bureaucrats and politicians, whether such an operation has been brought to your knowledge before being launched surreptitiously by Sh Ramnish, SSP? Moreover, as I am in the Judicial Custody as an Undertrial; any such enquiry or probe which has to be conducted regarding my lodging in the Jail, the same must be brought to the knowledge of the concerned Court prior permission of the Ld Court needs to be obtained. Whether Shri Ramnish and Shri Rajiv Ranjan, SI observed all these procedural formalities/ protocol before initiating the said enquiry, which in fact, is more in the nature of a veiled threat to me and my friends/family members? If not, such acts are highly deplorable. In case, the actions of Sh Ramnish have been authorized by senior officers, I humbly request you that instead of spying and snooping around Tihar Jail complex, harassing public, scaring my friends and family members, the CBI may observe the proper procedure of obtaining the permission of the concerned Court and interview me as per the Jail Rules. I am ever willing to cooperate with the CBI.

I request that an immediate enquiry into these incidents may be conducted by your office to bring out the truth and in case Sh Ramnish, SSP/AC-I or any of his subordinates are found to be involved in such a criminal misconduct/official impropriety, necessary departmental action may be initiated against them.

I further request that either Sh Ramnish, SSP may be transferred to such a Unit/Branch of the CBI that he is not in a position to influence the officers and subordinates dealing with my cases out of his personal vendetta against me or the investigation of all my cases may be transferred to some other Branch/Unit. With kind regards, Yours truly, Abhishek Verma Central Jail No.4 Tihar Prisons New Delhi 110064 Enclosed: As above

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--HH55

Assistant

Text Box

Letter from DoPT to Secretary CVC reg Abhishek Verma's complaint against Ramnish Geer and Ashok Aggarwal.

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--HH66

Assistant

Text Box

Abhishek Verma's complaint for misconduct and malicious prosecution seeking registration of FIR against Ramnish, Ashok Aggarwal & C.Edmonds Allen u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Assistant

Text Box

On the 28th of June 2013 at 3.25am C.Edmonds Allen tweets about Ramnish & Ashok Aggarwal

Assistant

Text Box

Three hours after Allen tweeted about Ramnish - the officer Ramnish is intimated by Allen who starts following Abhishek Verma on twitter.

Tweets

Tweets

Following

Followers

Favorites

Lists

Tweet to Ramnish

Who to follow· Refresh· View all

Popular accounts · Find friends

Harini Calamur calamur@

Follow

The Economist @TheEconomist

Follow

Shashi Shekhar offstumped@

Follow

Trends · Change

#LoveForLenskart

#ModiNumber1

#SnapdealQuiz

#ChandiKiBarish

#BreakFreeWithATIV

Ishrat Jahan

CBI

Jet-Etihad

Shah Rukh Khan

Taliban

© 2013 Twitter About Help Terms PrivacyBlog Status Apps Resources JobsAdvertisers Businesses Media Developers

21TWEETS

25FOLLOWING

18FOLLOWERS

Follow

Ramnish Ramnish1@myheartgotbroke@ why??//

Expand

11 Jun

Ramnish Ramnish1@not posted by meExpand

25 Dec

Ramnish Ramnish1@this is spamExpand

25 Dec

Ramnish Ramnish1@We made 138 in 3 hrs Proof here i.imgur.com/uckjA.jpg & got 800 yesterday Go here and drop 10 ASAP -cbsnews9.com/?401

…70179/makExpand

10 Dec

Ramnish Ramnish1@Watched "Kahani", excellent movie. In casting at begining.Thanks given to Mamta Banerjee, Honarary CM Ooops... instead of Hounrable CMExpand

18 Mar 12

Ramnish Ramnish1@RT httweets@ :Govt delaying prosecution of ex-CMD of coal PSU - Hindustan Times …news/New-hindustantimes.com/IndiaExpand

13 Feb 12

Ramnish Ramnish1@BDUTT@ Have you read the DNA Story: How to weaken

CBI?...Expand

12 Feb 12

Ramnish Ramnish1@DNA special: How to weaken the CBI dnai.in/atco via DNA@Expand

12 Feb 12

Ramnish Ramnish1@The Real Truth : Prashant Panday's blog-The Times Of India

…truth-real-blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/theExpand

14 Jan 12

Ramnish Ramnish1@New War Cry for Politicians " Anna se nahin.... Thapad se darr lagta hai Sahib"Expand

24 Nov 11

Ramnish Ramnish1@New War cry for politicians: "Anna se nahin... Thapad se darr lagta hai sahib"Expand

24 Nov 11

Ramnish Ramnish1@PeopleFusion@ search one for me....View conversation

24 Nov 11

Ramnish Ramnish1@Slapgate.... Politicians angry.... what about publicExpand

24 Nov 11

Home Connect Discover Me

Page 1 of 2 Ramnish (Ramnish1) on Twi...

https://twitter.com/Ramnish1 03/07/2013 7:07:11 PM

Back to top ↑

Ramnish Ramnish1@Sitting late in office for replies to Parliament questions.... But is it working....Expand

24 Nov 11

Ramnish Ramnish1@Navy war-room leak: Case falling apart

…zeenews.india.com/news/nation/na via ZeeNews@Expand

20 Sep 11

Ramnish Ramnish1@Pursing people to put in a bit more effort... speed up thingsExpand

18 Feb 11

Ramnish Ramnish1@Mausam bahut badmash ho gaya hai... daily rang badal raha hai...Expand

17 Feb 11

Ramnish Ramnish1@Is the stand taken by the PM on collation politics justify the aspirations of the tax payers... Is this expected from Manmohan Singh jiExpand

17 Feb 11

Ramnish Ramnish1@ALOKMITTAL_IPS@ I agree. Indians do have some skills in

driving but 99% do not have driving behavior. They know rights but not duties

View conversation

10 Oct 10

Ramnish Ramnish1@duttvivek@ ekele ekele party karte ho or kehte ho enjoy

kiya.... ?????????????Will see you...

View conversation

19 Jan 10

Ramnish Ramnish1@ALOKMITTAL_IPS@ Sir ji aap kaise hain. Me in Delhi till

22/1/2010. please cal me on 9818935555, I do not have your new number.

View conversation

19 Jan 10

Home Connect Discover Me

Page 2 of 2 Ramnish (Ramnish1) on Twi...

https://twitter.com/Ramnish1 03/07/2013 7:07:11 PM

Following

Tweets

Following

Followers

Favorites

Lists

Tweet to Ramnish

Who to follow· Refresh· View all

Popular accounts · Find friends

Shashi Shekhar offstumped@

Follow

shammy baweja shammybaweja@

Follow

nikhil wagle waglenikhil@

Follow

Trends · Change

#LoveForLenskart

#ModiNumber1

#SnapdealQuiz

#ChandiKiBarish

#BreakFreeWithATIV

Ishrat Jahan

CBI

Jet-Etihad

Shah Rukh Khan

iPad

© 2013 Twitter About Help Terms PrivacyBlog Status Apps Resources JobsAdvertisers Businesses Media Developers

21TWEETS

25FOLLOWING

18FOLLOWERS

Follow

N S Rajan RajanNS@Member - Group Executive Council and Group Chief Human Resources Officer, TATA Sons :::::: personal reflections

Follow

virendra arya varya1234@AN ENGINEERING TEACHER

Follow

Saurabh Tripathi saurabhips@Indian Police Service

Follow

Vivek Wahi VivekWahi1@ Follow

sudhir kumar sudhirkumar06@ Follow

Kailash Pareek CI KailashPareekCI@ Follow

Shail Shailparihar@follow your heart in what u do.

Follow

manish gupta manksh@ Follow

Mahendra Harsana msharsana@ Follow

Sudhakar Tadanki sudhakartadanki@ Follow

Anil Kaul anil_kaul@ Follow

Nisheet Kumar nisheet_06@ Follow

radhavinod raju radhavinodraju@ Follow

pankajmanchanda pankajmanchanda@I am Pankaj CE(M) with ONGC

Follow

dinesh kumar yadav dkyadav@ Follow

Ravi Kumar raviksingh@ Follow

Home Connect Discover Me

Page 1 of 2 Ramnish (Ramnish1) on Twi...

https://twitter.com/Ramnish1... 03/07/2013 7:11:03 PM

Sushil Kumar sushilf@Professor @ IIM Lucknow

Follow

Ashok Kakkar kakkar65@Managing Director - Varian Medical Systems

Follow

Sandeep Srivastava PeopleFusion@Mentor, Consultant, Headhunter & Runner -all rolled into one solid package !! Follow my running runindiarun@

Follow

alok mittal ALOKMITTAL_IPS@ Follow

Home Connect Discover Me

Page 2 of 2 Ramnish (Ramnish1) on Twi...

https://twitter.com/Ramnish1... 03/07/2013 7:11:03 PM

Followers

Tweets

Following

Followers

Favorites

Lists

Tweet to Ramnish

Who to follow· Refresh· View all

Popular accounts · Find friends

Shoma Chaudhury ShomaChau@ …Follow

Shashi Shekhar offstumped@

Follow

B.RAMAN SORBONNE75@

Follow

Trends · Change

#LoveForLenskart

#ModiNumber1

#SnapdealQuiz

#ChandiKiBarish

#BreakFreeWithATIV

Ishrat Jahan

CBI

Jet-Etihad

Shah Rukh Khan

UPA

© 2013 Twitter About Help Terms PrivacyBlog Status Apps Resources JobsAdvertisers Businesses Media Developers

21TWEETS

25FOLLOWING

18FOLLOWERS

Follow

gimmetricks gimmetricks@Gimmetricks is the leading technology media providing the information and timely updates about social networking, viruses, mobile technologies and card frauds

Follow

sudhir kumar sudhirkumar06@ Follow

sumeetgill dickoogill@Teacher, Interested in Higher education Reforms, healthcare, Supply Chain.....

Follow

sushil bansal sushilbansal66@ Follow

Shail Shailparihar@follow your heart in what u do.

Follow

Kailash Pareek CI KailashPareekCI@ Follow

manish gupta manksh@ Follow

Ashok Kakkar kakkar65@Managing Director - Varian Medical Systems

Follow

Vivek Wahi VivekWahi1@ Follow

Sudhakar Tadanki sudhakartadanki@ Follow

Sandeep Srivastava PeopleFusion@Mentor, Consultant, Headhunter & Runner -all rolled into one solid package !! Follow my running runindiarun@

Follow

Kamesh Baratam KameshBaratam@ Follow

Saurabh Tripathi saurabhips@Indian Police Service

Follow

Vivek Dutt@duttvivekSupdt of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, CBI, New Delhi, India

Follow

virendra arya varya1234@AN ENGINEERING TEACHER

Follow

Nisheet Kumar nisheet_06@ Follow

Home Connect Discover Me

Page 1 of 2 Ramnish (Ramnish1) on Twi...

https://twitter.com/Ramnish1... 03/07/2013 8:07:26 PM

Back to top ↑

Sushil Kumar sushilf@Professor @ IIM Lucknow

Follow

Anupam Kaushal anupamkaushal@…in.linkedin.com/in/anupamkaush Bridge Your

Talent Gap, Referral Networking, BNI, Trainer

Follow

Home Connect Discover Me

Page 2 of 2 Ramnish (Ramnish1) on Twi...

https://twitter.com/Ramnish1... 03/07/2013 8:07:26 PM

AANNNNEEXXUURREE--II11

1

The SHO Hari Nagar Police Station Delhi Police

15th July 2013

New Delhi

Sir,

Complaint for registration of FIR against Claxton Edmonds Allen, Vikki Choudhry, Ashok Aggarwal and Arjun Arora for Sexual Harassment, Stalking,

Forgery, Threatening, Conspiracy and Information Technology Act.

I am an European national in judicial custody due to false CBI cases, incarcerated

in Central Jail No.6, Tihar Prisons (Ladies Jail) alongwith my husband Mr.Abhishek

Verma who is in Jail No.4, Tihar since the 8th of June 2012.

I am a Director in GANTON INDIA PVT LTD, New Delhi which is a subsidiary of an

American company GANTON LIMITED (Suite 8-E, 123 East, 54th Street, New York,

NY 10022, USA) the owner of which is one Mr.Claxton Edmonds Allen who is

business partners and best friends with Vikki Choudhry and Arjun Arora, both

based in Delhi.

Claxton Edmonds Allen, Arjun Arora have cheated my husband Abhishek Verma in

2011-2012 for Rs.55 crores due to which my husband filed a complaint of cheating,

breach of trust, forgery, fabrication and others applicable sections in court, which

is currently pending in the Court of Ld.MM (Vasant Kunj) Mr.Prashant Sharma,

Patiala House, New Delhi.

My husband is also an Approver of the CBI against one Ashok Aggarwal in a case of

corruption (RC-SIU8-1999-E-0001). Aggarwal in order to have the u/s 164 IPC

statement tendered against him by my husband Abhishek Verma has been

constantly harassing and threatening us directly and through Vikki Choudhry,

Claxton Edmonds Allen and Arjun Arora.

For the above reasons, Ashok Aggarwal, Claxton Edmonds Allen, Arjun Arora and

Vikki Choudhry have an enmity with the undersigned and her husband Abhishek

Verma.

Vikki Choudhry threatened my husband in September 2012 in order to pressurize

him to withdraw his statement u/s 164 IPC against Aggarwal and the criminal case

2

filed in court against C.Edmonds Allen and Arjun Arora and if not, then my

husband and the undersigned would be eliminated in Tihar Jail itself. Immediately

after this incident, my husband complained to the CBI as the incident occurred in

their office and custody, a copy of which is attached as Annex-A.

Claxton Edmonds Allen regularly visits Delhi and he stays at the house of Vikki

Choudhry and/or Arjun Arora. Please note that Vikki Choudhry is presently a

Director of GANTON India Pvt Ltd and also holds 5% shares in this company.

Whereas Arjun Arora was a Director of GANTON India Pvt Ltd between October

2010 till April 2011. Both these persons stay at the apartment of Claxton Edmonds

Allen whenever they visit New York.

Vikki Choudhry is also the Power of Attorney holder of Ganton Limited, USA and

Claxton Edmonds Allen. A copy of the POA authorization issued to Vikki Choudhry

in August 2012 is attached herewith as Annex-B.

The details of the shareholding and list of directors of Ganton India Pvt Ltd

downloaded from ROC website and High Court of Delhi records is attached

herewith as Annex-C. Please take notice that the names of C.Edmonds Allen and

Vikki Choudhry are mentioned as Directors and Shareholders of the said company

alongwith the undersigned.

Claxton Edmonds Allen, Vikki Choudhry, Ashok Aggarwal and Arjun Arora together

been STALKING the undersigned and sent unwanted photos of the undersigned,

her family and friends and of Abhishek Verma against the wishes of the

undersigned on 26th of May 2013 (delivered to the undersigned on the 1st of July

2013 at her jail address through Tihar Jail-6 U.T. office). Copy attached as Annex-D.

The first photo in Annexure-D contains on top of the page, an inscription typed by

the offenders, stating “Arjun and Vikki wish you a happy anniversary”. The said

envelope was posted by GANTON Limited with its New York office address by

C.Edmonds Allen on 26th of May 2013.

On the 5th of February 2012, the undersigned had sent a fax to Allen refraining him

to contact her in future. However Allen continued to commit acts of stalking and

sexual harassment of the undersigned.

The photos in the above Annexure-D were contained in the Facebook of the

undersigned which was hacked by Vikki Choudhry and Arjun Arora at the

3

instructions of Claxton Edmonds Allen between June 2012 and May 2013 since all

three i.e. Allen, Choudhry and Arora were Blocked by undersigned from her

facebook in May 2012.

In the past 8 months Claxton Edmonds Allen, Ashok Aggarwal, Vikki Choudhry

and Arjun Arora have sent to Tihar, sexually explicit photos against the will of the

undersigned, and by making sexually coloured remarks on those photos in their

own handwriting. Copy attached as Annex-E.

The above act of Allen, Choudhry and Arora constitutes an offence of STALKING as

per the amended Indian Penal Code u/s 354D(1)(i) which states, “Any man who –

follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such a woman to foster

personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such

woman commits the offence of stalking”.

Besides the above violation, Choudhry, Arora, Aggarwal and Allen also hacked the

facebook of the undersigned unauthorizedly and gained access to private family

and friends’ photo collection thereby violating 66A of Information Technology Act.

Claxton Edmonds Allen, Vikki Choudhry, Ashok Aggarwal and Arjun Arora have

digitally morphed a photo of the undersigned, forging it to be obscene,

pornographic and Allen posted this photo on 29th June 2013 from Allen’s twitter

account ‘CEAllen3’ on the twitter account ‘sheikabhi’, with a caption, “Happy

Anniversary Con Couple Extraordinarie. Here is true love.” Copy of the twitter

posting with obscene photo contained therein is attached as Annex-F.

Twitter account ‘sheikabhi’ is jointly used by the undersigned and her husband

Abhishek Verma and this account is followed by hundreds of friends of ours thus

the reputation of the undersigned is severely tarnished and maligned. As twitter is

a public forum, the information and photos contained therein are open source and

seen by millions of viewers worldwide.

Vikki Choudhry is connected to Claxton Edmonds Allen on his twitter account and

is ‘following’ Allen as is evident from the list of followers of Allen in which the name

and photo of Vikki Choudhry is contained with the FOLLOWING button in blue

colour. Copy attached Annex-G.

By committing such act of obscenity, posting a morphed photo of the undersigned

on twitter, Claxton Edmonds Allen, Vikki Choudhry, Ashok Aggarwal and Arjun

4

Arora violated the provisions of Sexual Harassment as per the amended Indian

Penal Code u/s 354A(1)(ii) which reads as “A man committing any of the following

acts……(ii) showing pornography against the will of a woman shall be guilty of the

offence of sexual harassment.”

The three of the above named persons also committed acts of forgery for harming

reputation u/s 469 & 470 IPC with common intention u/s 34 IPC.

Due to the above acts of Allen, Choudhry, Aggawral and Arora – I am mentally

depressed, disturbed and unable to sleep at night. My family is traumatized and

my husband Abhishek Verma is also utterly embarrassed and upset. I am also

highly scared due to the life threats advanced on behalf of Ashok Aggarwal, by

Vikki Choudhry who is a unscrupulous character and has links with several

gangsters in India therefore, in the light of the above mentioned events, it is

requested, that the security around the undersigned in jail as well as on OPD and

court productions be strengthened and a formal communication is sent to the III

Bn DAP and Tihar Jail authorities in this regard.

These three above mentioned persons have conspired together to outrage modesty

of a woman therefore, they a FIR be registered against Claxton Edmonds Allen,

Ashok Aggarwal, Vikki Choudhry, Arjun Arora - for committing offences of sexual

harassment, stalking, , threatening, information technology act, common intention

for harm the reputation of a woman using a forged document and conspiracy – and

pursuant to that FIR, the offenders be taken into custody to prevent further acts of

threatening, violence and sexual harassment and forgery and a proper investigation

be launched in this matter. The addresses of the offenders are provided on

Annexure-H attached.

Yours truly,

Mrs.Anca-Maria Verma w/o Abhishek Verma Central Jail-6 Tihar Prisons New Delhi 110064

Enclosed: Annexures ‘A’ to ‘H’.