Delhi cops may quiz Indrani in money laundering case

Mumbai: Indrani Mukerjea, who is the main accused in Sheena Bora murder case, may be taken to Delhi for questioning over an alleged money laundering probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against her and others. A summons was issued by a special ED court in Delhi against her, which has reached the CBI court in Mumbai. The CBI court is expected to pass an order on the summons, and after that, she could be taken to Delhi.

The special court in Delhi on August 16 had issued production warrant against Indrani after ED sought permission to quiz her in a money laundering case allegedly involving Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union minister P Chidambaram.

On May 19, the ED registered a complaint against Karti alleging that he had received Rs 3.5 crore from INX Media, now 9X Media, for helping it get the clearance from Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) when his father was the Union finance minister.

The FIPB clearance was given to the Mumbai-based INX Media when Peter and Indrani Mukerjea headed it. Both husband and wife are currently in judicial custody in Sheena Bora murder case. All the accused have denied all the charges against them.

Meanwhile, during cross-examination, accused-turned-approver Shyamvar Rai on Monday told the special CBI judge J.C. Jagdale that apart from his own mobile number he remembered contacts of Indrani Mukerjea and her son Mekhael.

He also accepted that he used to speak to Mekhael on the phone frequently and for long durations, but he never informed him about the conspiracy against him because Indrani had instructed him not to disclose the conspiracy to anybody.

Rai gave details of Indrani and Mekhail’s mobile number to the court and said he could remember these numbers because he had memorised them.

Hear Peter’s plea on diaries afresh: HC to trial court
The Bombay high court has directed the trial court handling the Sheena Bora murder case to decide afresh on accused Peter Mukerjea’s application seeking the production of two police officers’ case diary and a personal diary in connection with accused-turned-approver Shyamvar Rai’s arms case, which was registered with the Khar police. The trial court had refused to give him the same.

A single bench of Justice A.M. Badar was hearing the petition filed by Peter. In his application, Peter stated that trial court had refused to give him a copy of case diary, personal diary and weekly diary of police sub-inspector Ganesh Dalvi and police inspector Dinesh Kadam who are the complainant and investigation officer respectively in the Bora case and illegal firearms case. According to Peter, these diaries are important for the cross-examination of Dalvi and Kadam.

He further stated that trial court judge did not consider that Kadam and Dalvi did not give their statement in the arms possessions case.

Peter’s counsel, Shrikant Shivde, argued that under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the accused can get case diaries and other documents of a case that is different from main case.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Anil Singh, however, opposed the petition, saying under section 91of the CrPC, the judge can pass an order for documents from other case only when discrepancies emerge.

The court then directed the trial court to hear Peter’s application afresh.