NEW DELHI: The Delhi High ‘Court said last month it would rule soon on whether former Indian prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao must testify as a co accused in a notorious “cheating” case. Judge S.K. Mahajan said Rao would be exempted from appearing in | person at a lower court hearing recently, pending his ruling on an appeal by the 75yearold politician against a summons to appear.” Someone will have to appear for him,” Mahajan said, referring to the lower court’s summons ordering Rao to. Appear on July 24, I will pass an order in two or three days. I don’t think I will be able to give this order by tomorrow or the day after.”
The “cheating” case involves an expatriate Indian, Lakhu Bai Pathak, who says he paid $100,000 to a Rao acquaintance in 1983 in an unsuccessful to (Ad XO Secure a state contract. Pathak, whose processed Asian foods empire in Britain have earned him the nickname “pickle king” in the Indian press, alleges that Rao — then foreign minister— assured him his “work would be done.” If his appeal succeeds. Rao’s battle to stay on as president of the demoralized and squabbling Congress party will be strengthened. Congress was tossed out of power in general elections in April and May. If he loses, his departure could cast a shadow over Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda’s future. Congress is the second largest party in parliament, whose support is crucial for the survival of Deve Gowda’s fragile 13party coalition.
Rao’s lawyer pleaded with the court to uphold the appeal, saying there was little evidence for the court to rule that his client had cheated Pathak. He said Rao might be arrested if he were forced to appear in court as a co accused in the case. “Is this the kind of evidence on which any reasonable man will ever come to the conclusion that an offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy can be made out?” Lawyer Kapil Sibal said. India’s federal police, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), asked the court to dismiss the appeal, arguing Rao should have approached the lower court itself to rescind the summons.
Article extracted from this publication >> July 31, 1996
