Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ing Public Limited Company, which supplies power to the main land side of Hong Kong Colony having a production capacity of 50% in excess of the demand. It is stated to have allowed Citi Pacific, a Chinese Company, to buy 20% of its shares. The President of Citi Pacific who is stated to be Lang Yung, son of the Chinese Vice-President Rong Yinen. Mr. Lang Yung is stated to be on the Board of China Light and Power and is alleged to have been a privy to all the secrets of China Light and Power including the payment of kickbacks, if any, on behalf of Mangalore Power Company. The Balance Sheet of China Light and Power for the year ending 30th of September, 1995 shows the provision of 122 Million Hong Kong Dollars towards development cost incurred by its subsidiary companies in relation to power projects outside Hong Kong. The corresponding development cost of the said Company for the previous year was nil. The development costs have been treated as a loss by writing it off from the profit and loss account and has not been shown as investment or loan to the subsidiary Company, leading to a suspicion regarding the payment of kickbacks and bribe. The cost of 122 Million Hong Kong Dollars is allegedly with respect to the Indian contract at Mangalore.

17. It is alleged that 191 Million Hong Kong Dollars have been paid through the subsidiary, China Light and Power Company as bribe, kickbacks, commission, etc., during the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 in violation of Prevention of Corruption Act, the Indian Penal Code and FERA for the following reasons:

(a) Bribes/kickbacks are considered a part of development cost internationally.

(b) In foreign accounting practices, there is no generation of black money and any amount paid for the purpose of bribe/kickback is through the books and camouflaged under acceptable heads.

(c) The shifting of the subsidiary company from Hong Kong to British Virgin island for the purpose of making payments on the so called "development costs" was to ensure confidentiality and secrecy. The British Virgin island is known for its laws which can protect investigation of money laundering/bribes and the laws are more stringent than Swiss Banking Laws. The shifting of the company to British Virgin island was consequent to allegations of kickbacks in the deal and this alone raises strong presumption of bribes and kickbacks. Incidentally, China Light in its 90 years of history has not held a subsidiary registered in British Virgin island.

36. In the instant case, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of directions, to order joint enquiry by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation and such other agencies as the Court may deem fit to conduct a comprehensive investigation into various documents based allegations made by the petitioners. Admittedly, there is no definite authority in existence who could direct such an enquiry. The prayer made is comprehensive in nature, apparently made to ward off all prejudicial influences in the conduct of the enquiry with respect to the alleged case of kickbacks and bribery. Merely for not approaching a statutory authority, the petitioners cannot be thrown out of the Court and the matter closed on hyper-technical pleas raised. However, the petitioners in this case have submitted that demand for an enquiry had been made at the highest level of public life from 1995 onwards. They have referred to a letter of Sri George Fernandes, Member of Parliament, addressed to the then Prime Minister and enclosed with their rejoinder as Annexure-R-2A. The matter is also stated to have been extensively reported in the Press. As the demand for enquiry at the highest level of the executive did not elicit any response, the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petition. In his letter dated 22-10-1996, Mr. George Fernandes, M.P., has pointed out that there was evidence of kickbacks in the project entrusted to Managalore Power Company Limited which were allegedly paid during the tenure of the then Prime Minister as Chief Minister of Karnataka. He relied upon the Balance Sheet of the China Light Company in support of his contention and referred to the statement of Chief Minister of Karnataka dated 14-10-1996 in support of his prayer for seeking investigation by a joint committee of parliamentarians or by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to find out who was the recipient of those alleged kickbacks. Needle of suspicion was pointed towards the Prime Minister himself. Admittedly no action was taken upon the basis of the aforesaid letter, with result that the present petition was filed in the Court having jurisdiction where the controversial project was proposed to be commissioned and installed. The objection regarding non-maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of having not approached the authorities before filing the petition is therefore without any substance and hence rejected.