‘Satyam’s Raju did not fudge accounts, only did window dressing’

New Delhi, Oct 22 (Calcutta Tube) The Supreme Court Wednesday was told that the alleged fudging of accounts by the former chairman of Satyam Computer Services Limited B. Ramalinga Raju was only ‘window dressing’.

The apex court bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma was told this by senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi while opposing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appeal seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the former Satyam chief, his brother Rama Raju and other accused by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The senior counsel told the court that no case for the cancellation of bail could be made out against Ramalinga Raju, Rama Raju and others as there was no instance of abuse of bail conditionality by his clients.

Rohtagi told the court that ‘law leans in favour of liberty. Bail is never denied as punishment’.

Earlier appearing for Raju brothers and others, senior counsel Ashok Desai said that there were 693 witnesses and 1.60 lakh pages evidence in the matter.

He told the court that by no reasonable estimation the trial in the case would be competed within six months as being claimed by the CBI.

Referring to the way trials proceed in subordinate courts, Desai said that it would take years before the trial in the case was likely to be completed.

However, when Desai said that Satyam has once again regained its standing and was flourishing, Justice Verma said: ‘This is not because of you. But a formidable entity has taken over its operations’.

Earlier, the court pulled up the CBI for not filing an affidavit stating specific instances of violation of bail conditions by the Ramalinga Raju, Rama Raju and others.

The court told Additional Solicitor General Harin Rawal that the investigating agency was accusing the respondents (Raju brothers and others) of violating bail conditions by tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses but where was the affidavit stating all the instances in support of its allegation.

Subsequently, Rawal filed the affidavit when the court reassembled after lunch break.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *