CBI should question me, shouldn’t harass Karti : P Chidambaram
Karti Chidambaram refused to appear before the CBI in connection with a case related to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board clearance in 2006 in the Aircel Maxis deal.india Updated: Sep 15, 2017 23:11 IST
Former finance minister P Chidambaran on Friday said the CBI should question him instead of harassing his son Karti in the Aircel-Maxis case.
The CBI had summoned Karti for questioning on Thursday but he didn’t appear before the agency saying a special court has discharged all accused in the case and also ‘terminated’ proceedings in the matter.
P Chidambaram accused the federal anti-corruption agency of spreading misinformation. “In Aircel-Maxis, FIPB recommended and I approved minutes. CBI should question me and not harass Karti Chidambaram,” tweeted the ex-finance minister.
“Sad, CBI spreading misinformation. In Aircel-Maxis, FIPB (Foreign Investment Promotion Board) officials have recorded statements before CBI that approval given was valid,” he tweeted. But CBI spokesman Abhishek Dayal said: “The summon relates to the allegation that money was paid by Maxis and Aircel promoters to the two companies promoted by Karti as a quid pro quo for the FIBP approval.”
Dayal added that the special court had granted permission to the CBI to continue probe into matter. Besides, court proceeding against two Malaysian nationals and two Malaysian firms are pending as they didn’t appear before the court following the submission of charge sheet. The CBI has requested the Interpol for issuance of Red Notices against the two nationals.
In August 2014, the CBI had charge sheeted ex-telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran, his brother Kalanithi, Malaysian businessman T Ananda Krishnan, Malaysian national Ralph Marshall and four firms — Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd, South Asia Entertainment Holding Ltd, Maxis Communication Berhad and ASTRO All Asia Network PLC. But earlier this year, the special CBI court had discharged the Maran brothers and two companies — Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd and South Asia Entertainment Holding Ltd – in the case. The agency has challenged the discharge order in the high court.