Clean chit to Cong; No fin. benefit to Natwar: Pathak, ATR

New Delhi, Aug 7: The Manmohan Singh government today accepted the Justice R S Pathak Inquiry Authority report which has given a clean chit to the Congress, but has indicted former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh and his son for misusing their positions for helping their associates get oil contracts under the UN oil-for-food programme for Iraq.

The findings of the Authority and the Action Taken Report (ATR) were tabled in the two Houses of Parliament amid pandemonium with an agitated opposition demanding an apology or resignation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, owning responsibility for the leak of the authority's conclusions to a television channel.

The report, however, said there was no evidence to show that Mr Natwar Singh and his son, Jagat Singh, monetarily benefited from the contract Nos. M/09/54 and M/10/57 under which a total of 146,000 dollars were received as commission by Aditya Khanna and Andaleeb Sehgal, associate and relative respectively of Jagat Singh, through their companies -- Hamdaan Exports and Sehgal Consultants.

The ATR said the authority's report would be forwarded ''in its entirety'' to the Enforcement Directorate, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Central Board of Excise and Customs for further action against those accused of receiving foreign exchange in violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).

The government's move to hand over the report to the three agencies under the Finance Ministry has come despite the Inquiry Authority's opinion that its findings and observations ''cannot be made the basis of a proceeding, civil or criminal, against a person involved in the inquiry.'' According to the report, Mr Khanna and Mr Sehgal received a total sum of 146,000 dollars, which ''amounts to about 5 per cent per barrel of oil. The entire amount was received in the bank account of INDRUS Trading Company Limited located in Jersey, Channel Islands.

This was to be distributed in the ratio of 4:1 between Shri Andaleeb Sehgal and Shri Aditya Khanna.'' Of this, 68,293 dollars was received in the accounts of Hamdaan Exports and Sehgal Consultants in India. For his share, Mr Khanna received 32,558 dollars which he retained in the accounts of INDRUS, the report said.

''The Inquiry Authority has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to link the Congress Party to the transactions discussed in this Report and except for the fact that Shri K Natwar Singh and Shri K Jagat Singh belonged to the Indian Congress Party there is not a shred of evidence to link the Congress Party to the said transactions,'' the 87-page report said.

The report, however, said Mr Natwar Singh, mentioned as a non-contractual beneficiary, ''was a beneficiary in so far that the role played by him in influencing and facilitating the procurement of the contracts had fructified''.

The ATR, which was tabled along with the report by Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the Lok Sabha and MoS Finance Pawan Kumar Bansal in the Rajya Sabha, said, '' The government have examined the report and have accepted the conclusions contained in the report.'' The brief three-page ATR said the Inquiry Authority, set up on November 11, 2005, had found that ''there is no material to show that Shri Natwar Singh derived any financial or other personal benefit from the contracts''.

''As regards the Indian Congress Party, it has been shown as a non-contractual beneficiary with respect to Contract No. M/10/57.

The Inquiry Authority has found no evidence that the Congress Party was involved in the Contract and that it derived any benefit at all from the Contract. Indeed, there is nothing to show that the Indian Congress Party had anything to do with the Contracts M/09/54 and M/10/57.'' Both the Houses witnessed two adjournments each in the pre-lunch sitting, with the opposition stalling the proceedings over the alleged leak.

The ATR, quoting the authority's report, said, ''The reference to Shri Natwar Singh respect to Contract No. M/09/54 is justified in the sense explained earlier, while the reference to the Indian Congress Party with respect to Contract No M/10/57 is not justified at all.'' The Authority had been set up in the wake of the Volcker committee report which had named the Congress, Mr Natwar Singh and a number of other individuals and entities from India as non-contractual beneficiaries of the UN oil-for-food scheme for the now dethroned Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

The Authority was asked to inquire into the two contracts and give its opinion on the authenticity and reliability of the sources, materials and documents, and whether, in its opinion, the purported transactions in oil are genuine or not.

It had also been asked to give its opinion whether the references to Indian entities and individuals pertaining to the two contracts ''are justified or not''.

Both the Houses witnessed two adjournments each in the pre-lunch sitting, with the opposition stalling the proceedings over the alleged leak of the authority's report to a television channel as soon as it was submitted to Dr Singh last week. The report and the ATR were tabled amid pandemonium in the two Houses as the agitated opposition MPs kept raising shouting.

The ATR, quoting the authority's report, said, ''The reference to Shri Natwar Singh respect to Contract No. M/09/54 is justified in the sense explained earlier, while the reference to the Indian Congress Party with respect to Contract No M/10/57 is not justified at all.'' The Authority had been set up in the wake of the Volcker committee report which had named the Congress, Mr Natwar Singh and a number of other individuals and entities from India as non-contractual beneficiaries of the UN oil-for-food scheme for the now dethroned Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

The Authority was asked to inquire into the two contracts and give its opinion on the authenticity and reliability of the sources, materials and documents, and whether, in its opinion, the purported transactions in oil are genuine or not.

It had also been asked to give its opinion whether the references to Indian entities and individuals pertaining to the two contracts ''are justified or not.'' Under contract No. M/09/54 the total surcharges paid by Hamdaan Exports Ltd, owned by Andaleep Sehgal who is a relative of Mr Natwar Singh, were 498,518 dollars. For the contract No. M/10/57, an amount of 250,032 dollars was paid as surcharges. ''Therefore, the total amount paid as surcharges after going through the various documents is a sum of 748,550 dollars,'' the report said.

The report further said for their part, ''Shri Aditya Khanna (an associate of Mr Sehgal) and Shri Andaleeb Sehgal received a total sum of 146,000 which amounts to about 5 per cent per barrel of oil.'' ''The entire amount was received in the bank account of INDRUS Trading Company Ltd located in Jersey, Channel Islands. This was to be distributed in the ratio of four to one between Shri Andaleeb Sehgal and Shri Aditya Khanna.'' Out of 146,000 dollars, an amount totalling 68,293 dollars was received in the accounts of Hamdaan Exports and Sehgal Consultants in India. For his share, Mr Aditya Khanna received 32,558 dollars which he retained in the accounts of INDRUS, the report said.

Eds: pls pick suitably from earlier series.

UNI