Defreezing of Accounts: Guj & Setalvad trades charges in SC

Gujarat government and activist Teesta Setalvad today traded charges against each other in the Supreme Court during the hearing of a case registered against her for alleged misappropriation of funds received by her NGOs for the riots victims of 2002.
While the state government alleged that Teesta and her husband Javed Anand had "siphoned" the funds collected in the name of charity by spending it on "dining and wining", her counsel refuted the claims saying she had spent the money from her own pocket.
The apex court was hearing the pleas by Teesta, Anand and their two NGOs - Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace - who had approached the top court challenging the October 7, 2015 verdict of the Gujarat High Court rejecting their pleas for defreezing their personal bank accounts.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state, alleged before a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and A M Khanwilkar that Teesta and Anand had diverted crores of rupees received by their NGOs in their personal accounts and spent it on shopping and Dubai tour.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Teesta, her husband and the two NGOs, countered the claims saying these allegations have been "fabricated" as they have spent the money from their credit cards.
"I am challenging them (state) to show even a single document which says so. They must show document to justify what they are alleging. He (Mehta) has made public statements against these individuals who are fighting against the state," he told the bench, which fixed the matter for further hearing on July 5.

Mehta alleged before the bench that there was misappropriation of funds which were collected for charity by Teesta and her husband and police was in the midst of probe in the matter.

Referring to bank account summaries of the two NGOs, he alleged that money was spent on "dining bills, wining bills, shopping in Dubai" by them and police required their custodial interrogation for the ongoing investigation.
Sibal, however, said the probe agency could have freezed the account of Gulbarg society memorial as this was a subject matter of the FIR, but there was no justification in freezing other bank accounts.

He said that money had come to these accounts from legal source and after Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) clearances and this matter was not related to FCRA in any way.
"He (Mehta) is mentioning about FCRA matter, which has nothing to do with this matter. The FIR relates to Gulbarg society. FCRA proceedings are going on separately," he said.
Mehta gave details of the donations received by the NGOs and also about the funds which were allegedly diverted to the personal accounts of Teesta and her husband.
"I am arguing at a stage when the probe is pending. Our investigation can effectively progress only when we have their custodial interrogation," he said, adding that the possibility of cash donations received by them cannot be ruled out.

Sibal said Teesta and her husband have provided 20,000 documents to the investigating agency but it has "prepared its own chart on its own interpretation which cannot stand the legal scrutiny."
"They must show documents to justify what they are alleging. If they will show, I will be out of this court and withdraw the petition," he asserted.
As they were trading charges against each other, the bench observed, "we will go by the counter affidavit which is placed on record. The basic issue is whether during pendency of investigation, there can be seizure of this extent".
The bench fixed the matter for July 5 and asked both the parties to file their written submissions.

The apex court had in February questioned the source of money in the bank accounts of Teesta and others which were frozen by the Ahmedabad police in 2015 after allegations of misappropriation had surfaced.
One of the residents of Gulberg society, Firoz Khan Pathan, had filed a complaint against Teesta and others alleging that money was raised to make a museum at Gulberg society in the memory of 69 people killed in the 2002 Gujarat riots, but it had not been utilised for the purpose.
The freezing of the accounts by Ahmedabad Police had come soon after its crime branch had started probing a case in which Teesta and others were accused of embezzling Rs 1.51 crore collected to convert Gulbarg Society into a museum.

The high court had upheld the verdict of a lower court in this regard observing that the probe was at a serious point in the alleged case of Gulbarg society fund embezzlement.
In the embezzlement case lodged by the Gujarat Police, the couple had challenged the cancellation of bail in the apex court, while in the alleged FCRA violation case, CBI has challenged the anticipatory bail granted to them by the Bombay High Court. Both matters are pending before the apex court.