(Reopens LGD 44)

first_imgThe Solicitor General had said in the FCRA case, CBI was seeking explanation for utilisation of funds received from the Ford Foundation but none of the over 4,700 documents provided related to the probe.What the couple have given to the agency were vouchers relating to air travel, expenditure on wine, liquor, payments made to restaurants and hotels and documents about directors emoluments, he said.Sibal had said even under the Income Tax Act, the investigators cannot ask for documents for a long period of 2004 to 2016 and at best, they can go for documents of last eight years.However, the bench had said, “They may be having books of account. You can say on affidavit that under the statute, you are not required to examine records of particular duration.”The bench also wanted to know that can under the Income Tax Act, after filing of balance sheets, other documents can be destroyed.The Gujarat High Court on February 12, 2015 had rejected their anticipatory bail in the fund embezzlement case which was stayed on the same day after the couple approached the apex court.The CBI has contested the August 11, 2015 order of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to Teesta and her husband in the FCRA violation case, claiming the court had erred in giving relief after holding “prima facie” that they had violated the law.Earlier too, the apex court had warned the couple that their failure to adhere to the conditions imposed by the high court may lead to cancellation of their anticipatory bail granted in the FCRA violation case.advertisementWhile the couple denied all charges claiming they were being victimised for taking up the cause of riot victims, the agency held that prima facie there was misuse of funds they had received from Ford Foundation for which they were “undoubtedly answerable” and the high court ought not have granted them anticipatory bail using its extraordinary discretionary powers.Teesta also challenged some remarks of the high court, saying “the observations made by the high court in para 8 of the impugned judgment are premature, misconceived and unjustified inasmuch as they have been recorded solely on the basis of the malicious allegations of the prosecution and without there being any relevant document or material on record, necessary to adjudicate upon the merits of the matter.” PTI SJK RKS ZMNlast_img read more