Rahul has a long way to go into understanding how different departments in the government operate

Rahul is obsessed with is to become the country’s Prime Minister for which he could one day light a bonfire of our Constitution in Jantar Mantar. He is actually an Evil with capital “E”

Rahul is not a mere Baba or Pappu. He is also not only “a buffoon, the biggest buffoon of the country” as dubbed recently the Telangana Chief Minister. Perhaps he is not merely the Ignoramus Colossus of India who does not know either the intricacies of economics or the morals of politics.

This action by Jaitley threw the Congress MP’s Press meet assertion into the gutter. However, Rahul did not slander his lying MP who saw an invisible Jaitley talking to Mallya in the Central Hall of Parliament

The one thing he seems obsessed with is to become the country’s Prime Minister for which he thinks nothing of tearing a Presidential Ordinance at a Press conference and for which he could one day light a bonfire of our Constitution in Jantar Mantar. He is actually an Evil with capital “E”.

The events of the last fortnight this September are indications of that nomenclature.

Early in that evil fortnight, he had been publicly caught by the nation for not disclosing his Directorial status in his Income Tax return of 2010-11, years ago. But there was no remorse or shame from his side.

Instead, he first brought an MP of his Congress party to a Press briefing of his with the intention of making the man say that Arun Jaitley, our Finance Minister, had met Vijay Mallya, the notorious bank defaulter, for 15-20 minutes on annual Budget day of March 1, 2018, and struck some kind of a deal for letting him escape to London the next night, bag and baggage.

Imagine how Mr Evil did not care, how much shame this unproven statement about a “deal” between two Rajya Sabha members might bring to the entire stature status to our Parliament’s elite House. And remember it came from the same man who requested the Delhi High Court to ensure that our media was not conveyed his failure to disclose a vital parameter from his own filed Tax Return.

Quickly after that “Evil” Press meet, Jaitley showed the cast-iron proof of his tight diary schedule for March 1, when he was not at all present in the Central Hall of Parliament; and remember that, earlier issued a public clarification by Jaitley that he had met Mally in the Rajya Sabha on March 1 for a maximum of 40 seconds.

This action by Jaitley threw the Congress MP’s Press meet assertion into the gutter. However, Rahul did not slander his lying MP who saw an invisible Jaitley talking to Mallya in the Central Hall of Parliament.

Or was Rahul’s charge of NaMo’s interference with those two CBI notices another outright lie?

Instead of slandering his own lying MP and apologising to Jaitley, Rahul chose to slander Jaitley yet again. And roped in the Prime Minister as well.

In a Tweet reported on the front page of Mumbai’s “Free Press Journal” newspaper dated 15th September 2018, Rahul said “Mallya’s Great Escape was aided by the CBI by quietly changing the “Detain’ notice to him to one of ‘Inform’. The CBI reports directly to the PM. It is inconceivable that the CBI in such a high profile, controversial case, would choose to issue a lookout notice without the approval of the PM.”

The above Tweet, pointing the gun straight at our Prime Minister, once more shows the highest possible indiscretion of Rahul Evil. There is no reason why he did not bother to gather and reveal some proof of what a big derogatory remark he was making. The basic thing he ought to have done was to first talk discreetly and diplomatically to the CBI Director, Anil Sinha, who held that highest CBI office when the two CBI Look Out Circulars were issued before his retirement on December 2, 2016.

Or was Rahul’s charge of NaMo’s interference with those two CBI notices another outright lie? Remember, he had lied when he said – in Parliament—that, in a personal meeting, the President of France had denied to him that the NDA Government’s Rafale Deal for fighter Jets was a secret one. Oh, how on earth can some outright liar be elected as our motherland’s PM?

And, readers, Rahul(like dozens of our ill-read journalists) does not know that the Home Ministry’s designation for a so-called Lookout notice is “Look Out Circular” (LOC); this is so because a LOC is NOT issued to any single human entity, but is “circulated” to the many law enforcement and investigative agencies.

In any case, the controversy of two LOCs being issued to Mallya is essentially so much hogwash. Why?

Because, while it is true that the CBI issued two different LOCs, the fact is that none of them was warranted. Let’s sort out this fully because those details tell a story of their own and include a critical fact that everyone seems to have missed.

The undisputed facts about the two LOCs have been issued. A reputed magazine reported as follows. and they run as follows:

(i) On October 16, 2015, the CBI, which was probing allegations of financial irregularities against Vijay Mallya, issued a notice saying that the liquor and airline tycoon should be detained if he tried to leave India

(ii) On November 24, 2015, the CBI issued a fresh LOC against Mallya. This notice said that the only action to be taken in case Mallya reached any port to leave India was to simply inform the CBI and let the businessman continue on his travels.

(iii) This was done, sources within the CBI told India Today TV, since the October 16 look-out circular had a “mistake”. The notice was issued by the CBI’s Mumbai unit and an officer there ‘mistakenly’ ticked the checkbox meant for detention while filling out the look-out notice, the sources said.

(iv) The mistake, apparently, came to light only on November 23 when Mallya was to leave India for a day-long foreign trip.

(v)When he reached the airport, the Bureau of Immigration, which is tasked with regulating the inflow and outflow of passengers at ports, called the CBI to ask whether the October 16 look-out notice should be executed, the sources said. The CBI told the agency: No.

(vi) The October 16 look-out circular had a mistake, the CBI explained. On November 24, the day Mallya was to return from his foreign trip, the agency issued the new circular.

The sources said that the CBI did not want Mallya detained as the businessman was cooperating with the officers investigating the allegations against him. And so, the new CBI look-out circular merely asked the Bureau of Immigration to “inform it about Mallya’s departure and travel plans”.

(vii) After his November 23-24 trip, Mallya once again travelled abroad in December. The sources said that Mallya kept the CBI in the loop about his travel plans. Mallya, however, did not inform the agency about the last time he left He has not returned since and is currently in London where a court is hearing India’s request to extradite him back home. (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/vijay-mallya-cbi-look-out-circular-diluted-1338741-2018-09-13)

Below is the finale of the LOC story.

On September 13 the CBI’s “error of judgement” system was published. It said that the change in a 2015 Lookout Circular against liquor baron Mallya from “detain” to merely informing about his movements was an “error” in judgement because he was cooperating in the probe and there was no warrant against him.

The above-underlined words in Italics constitute the most crucial issue of a LOC. Sadly, it has been ignored by journalists and all others concerned.

The crux of a LoC lies in the Home Ministry’s seven-page Office Memorandum of 27th October 2010. It is based on two Delhi High Court verdicts. For the benefit of readers, this is attached here as downloaded from the Internet.

Lookoutcircular 27042017 EXISTING NORMS by Neha on Scribd

The most important point of this above Memorandum is 7(a). It says “Recourse to LoC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was the likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.” (IPC denotes Indian Penal Code, and NBW denotes Non-Billable Warrant.)

The issue of the cognizable offence stated above in 7(a) is reiterated in the said Memorandum’s 8(g) which says, “Recourse to LOC is to be taken in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws.”

Hence the CBI’s “error of judgement” is itself wrong. The non-issue of a Warrant of Arrest should have been the only cause of not detaining or arresting Mallya.

And let it be understood that being a Willful Defaulter of a Bank loan is not considered a crime – as yet. As “Business Standard” said in one of its reports “At present, there is no specific law for legal action against Wilful defaulters. Banks initiate action against such accounts under laws like the SARFAESI Act.” “(https://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/all-you-need-to-know-about-wilful-defaulters-116022400481_1.)_ Hence, no “wilful defaulter” can be the subject of Look Out Circular for unless he has also committed a cognisable offence under a penal law of our country. QED.

Will Rahul “Evil” understand this? Or will his Mumma have to bring Sam Pitroda from the USA to coach him on all such issues? After all, this Uncle Sam seems to be the friend, guide and philosopher in the Gandhi entourage.

Note:

1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.

2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.