Court frames charges against ex-NALCO CMD, his wife in DA case

National Aluminium Company Ltd's (NALCO) former CMD Abhay Kumar Srivastava has been put on trial for allegedly acquiring assets of over Rs 2.5 crore disproportionate to his income by a Delhi court, which also framed charges against his wife for abetting the crime.
While Srivastava was charged for the alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, his wife Chandini Srivastava was put on trial under section 109 (punishment of abetment) of the IPC.
This is the second case in which charges have been framed against them. The couple, along with five others, has been put on trial in another corruption case by the court.

"Order on charge is announced. Charge framed against both the accused persons. Both the accused plead not guilty. Come up for prosecution evidence on March 17," Special CBI Judge Vinod Kumar said.
CBI has alleged that Srivastava, a public servant during the check period from May 3, 2001 to February 25, 2011, had acquired huge immoveable and moveable assets which were disproportionate to the extent of Rs 2,29,49,746 to his known sources of income.
Regarding his wife, the agency has alleged that she had abetted the commission of offence by Srivastava.

It has claimed that gold bricks and jewellery were found in a bank locker which was opened by Chandini impersonating as Anita Bajaj, a co-accused in the graft case.

During the arguments, the court had asked the agency to explain that when 10 gold bricks were recovered from the bank locker, why only seven gold bricks were being counted in the assets of accused.
CBI had told the court that of the 10 bricks, three were connected with a separate trap case wherein the bribe was converted into gold bricks.
The counsel appearing for the accused had told the court that it would be for the CBI to prove that these gold bricks belonged to his clients.
"I am of the opinion that if three gold bricks are part of bribe in trap case....It does not mean that the acquiring (sic) of three gold bricks has been explained by the accused.

"The said bribe money does not form 'known source of income' in any manner," the judge said, adding "therefore, all the 10 gold bricks have to be counted in the list of assets.