Rao blames Rajiv and V P Singh for St Kitts episode

Former prime minister P V Narasimha told a Delhi court that the St Kitts episode was a result of the political rivalry between his predecessors -- V P Singh and the late Rajiv Gandhi -- and pleaded his innocence in the case.

Arguing that there was no evidence to frame charges of criminal conspiracy and forgery against Rao, his counsel R K Anand told Additional Sessions Judge Ajit Bharihoke that while the Rajiv government had shown great hurry in placing papers relating to the alleged secret account in Parliament, the V P Singh government avoided finding out whether the account existed.

The case relates to the alleged fabrication of documents to show that Ajeya Singh, V P Singh's son, had deposited $ 21 million in a secret account in the First Trust Corporation Ltd on St Kitts island.

Anand said V P Singh's initial reaction to news reports about the secret account, was that the fabrication of documents was for the ''sole purpose of harming my reputation.'' But it was strange, the counsel said, that when Singh came to power in November 1989, he made no effort to show that the alleged account did not exist.

If Ajeya Singh had not really held an account, the V P Singh government could have procured an official statement to this effect from either the FTCL or the St Kitts government, Anand argued.

Stating that he had no role in the alleged forgery of Ajeya Singh's signature, Rao said according to the evidence on record it was K K Tewary, then minister of state for external affairs, who had sought Ajeya Singh's passport.

Even when the file was placed before him in January 1989, Rao, then external affairs minister, had refused to issue any order, stating that matters relating to passports were within the jurisdiction of the minister of state.

This made it clear that he was not part of the alleged conspiracy to defame V P Singh through forgery, counsel Anand said.

Further, the decision to conduct a probe on the basis of newspaper reports about the alleged secret account was taken by the prime minister's office when Rajiv Gandhi headed the government.

A P Nanday, then deputy director, Enforcement Directorate, had been sent to St Kitts at the instance of the PMO and the finance ministry, therefore Anand contended that Rao was not involved in getting attested the signature of George Mclean, the then managing director, FTCL, on the documents showing the existence of the account.

Even if Rao had not asked R K Roy, consul general at the Indian consulate in New York, to attest the signatures, Nanday, being a senior government official, could have got this done on his own, the counsel said.

V P Singh, after coming to power, had sought explanations from the investigating officials about their role in the alleged forgery instead of trying to prove that his son had never held the secret account.

Squarely blaming the CBI, Anand said the investigating agency had ''deliberately failed'' to collect the original documents from FTCL. He also contended that the witnesses had changed their statements following the fall of the Rajiv Gandhi government.