New Delhi: A Delhi High Court order directing meat exporter Moin Akhtar Qureshi to provide voice samples for comparison with the Income Tax Department’s intercepted calls could revive a stalled eight-year-old corruption probe.
The court last week upheld a 2021 lower court order directing him to provide voice samples, dismissing his argument that it would amount to self-incrimination and was a violation of his fundamental right to privacy. He also questioned the evidentiary value of transcripts recorded in 2014-15.
The intercepted calls from 2013 formed the basis of probes by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was alerted that Qureshi was allegedly working as a middleman for several public servants.
Based on the ED’s information, the CBI booked its former chief A.P. Singh, Qureshi and others in February 2017. However, the case got caught in an unprecedented conflict in October 2018, when the then-CBI director Alok Verma ordered the registration of an FIR against the then-special director Rakesh Asthana and his team.
This scenario evolved after Hyderabad-based businessman Satish Babu Sana alleged that he paid Asthana and others to ‘settle’ the case against him that linked him to Qureshi.
Asthana was not named in the charge sheet filed in the 2018 case, while the others, including the CBI’s investigating officer, were also discharged in March 2023. But Qureshi has not yet been charged in the 2017 case.
“The probe was stuck due to this pending appeal for four years, and the charge sheet could not be filed because of the awaiting verification of transcripts of the prime accused, Qureshi. The order clears the way for recording voice samples critical for the probe in the case,” a source privy to the case details told ThePrint.
On 24 December, the high court dismissed Qureshi’s arguments, saying that the right to privacy is not absolute and cannot override legitimate state interests, such as the prevention and investigation of crime.
“In the present case, the investigation is in progress to establish the identity of the speakers. Merely because the intercepts were made seven-eight years ago, does not inherently invalidate them for the purpose of investigation,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said in the order.
She said the investigation at this stage was focused on the collection of evidence, and the issue of admissibility, authenticity, and evidentiary value of the intercept would be determined at the trial stage.
“Pre-judging the validity of the source material to deny the collection of comparison samples, would amount to a mini-trial at the investigation stage, which is impermissible,” the court added.
Also Read: The Moin Qureshi probe that split CBI and led to the war within
The CBI vs CBI battle
Qureshi’s case dates back to February 2014, when the I-T department raided his premises after intercepting calls from two mobile phones between October and December 2013.
It allegedly found evidence of tax evasion and foreign currency manipulation, prompting the ED to launch an inquiry under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
The ED allegedly found that Qureshi was working as a middleman for several public servants and wrote to the CBI seeking registration of a criminal case. The CBI lodged a case in February 2017 against Qureshi, its former chief A.P. Singh and others.
The case involved a CBI team led by CBI Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar, under the then-special director Rakesh Asthana.
However, the case took an unusual twist when Sana—who was summoned for his alleged links with Qureshi—approached CBI director Alok Verma, alleging coercion and extortion by the CBI team probing the 2017 case.
He alleged that the CBI team offered to let him go for a bribe of Rs 5 crore—Rs 3 crore in advance and Rs 2 crore after he was cleared during the charge sheet stage.
An FIR was filed against Asthana and Devender Kumar on Sana’s complaint and the CBI conducted searches at the offices of its own officers at its headquarters in Delhi.
Following the infighting between the top CBI bosses, the government sent Verma and Asthana on leave and appointed Mannem Nageswara Rao as interim director in October 2018.
Meanwhile, Asthana wrote to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) alleging that “huge amounts of bribes were given to the Director, CBI, to avoid taking any action” against Satish Babu Sana.
Later that year, the Supreme Court set aside the government’s order divesting Verma of his responsibilities and sending him on leave. However, the top court barred him from taking any “policy decisions.”
In January 2019, a high-power selection committee, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, formally removed Verma from the post. The IPS officer of 1979 batch resigned from service the next day.
Asthana, on the other hand, was appointed Director General of the Border Security Force in 2020 and Delhi Police Commissioner in 2021. He retired from service in July 2022.
The CBI has been criticised on several occasions for failing to make headway in the probe, particularly because its two previous chiefs were accused in the case.
A Delhi court, in fact, summoned a joint director-level officer in 2020, seeking an explanation for not adopting “tried and tested” methods in the case.
“Why did the CBI not bring investigations to a logical end by using tried and tested methods of investigations like searches, custodial interrogation of potential suspects? Was the alleged role of its ex-director Alok Verma also investigated (since) he allegedly stalled or did not allow the investigations to reach their logical end during his tenure,” the judge asked the agency in 2020.
“Why is the CBI dragging its feet in a case involving the roles of two of its ex-directors, which may lead to an inference that it is not very keen to pursue investigations against them,” the judge asked.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)