The CBI team that questioned Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLC Kalvakuntla Kavitha in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam is understood to have served her another notice under Section 91 of the CrPC, seeking evidence and documents about the case.
Kavitha, daughter of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao, was interrogated for seven-and-a-half hours at her Hyderabad residence on Sunday, 11 December.
She was examined under Section 161 of the CrPC, after serving her a notice under Section 160, asking her to share information on the scam as a witness.
According to sources, the CBI, not satisfied with her statement, wanted her to furnish evidence for several inferences that the probe team had made during its investigation.
The CBI cannot demand the production of any evidence supporting their inferences under Section 161, and hence they issued a fresh notice under Section 91.
What is Section 91 of CrPC?
“Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for any investigation, inquiry, trial or another proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order,” states Section 91 of the CrPC.
Under Section 91, the person who has been served the notice would have to produce the evidence or document at a time and place chosen by the investigators.
The section, however, does not mandate that the individual should produce the evidence in person.
What if the person does not submit the evidence?
In such an event, the investigation agency could get a search warrant from a court and search the premises of the individual where it believes the evidence may have been hidden. This would be done under Section 93 CrPC.
Related: Frequently asked questions on the CBI notice to Kavitha
What is Section 93 of the CrPC?
“Where any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons or order under Section 91 or a requisition under Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition, or where such document or thing is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person, or where the Court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or another proceeding under this Code will be served by a general search or inspection, it may issue a search-warrant; and the person to whom such warrant is directed, may search or inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions hereinafter contained.
“The Court may, if it thinks fit, specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or inspection shall extend; and the person charged with the execution of such warrant shall then search or inspect only the place or part so specified.”
Going by the Act, the CBI’s next move would be to glean evidence to know if Kavitha is involved in the scam.
Given the sensitivity of the case, the CBI is likely to proceed cautiously. In the notice served to her under Section 91 of the CrPC, the CBI had not specified the date and time for her to hand over the evidence.
Sources said the CBI wanted the information she has about the scam and also to know if she is involved.
Kavitha in list of accused/suspects
The remand report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) while producing Amit Arora, one of the accused in the Delhi liquor scam, in the Rouse Avenue District Court in Delhi on 29 November, stated that Kavitha is part of what it called the “South Group” that had paid ₹100 crore in kickbacks to Vijay Nair, who was acting on behalf leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
The ED said in its remand report: “The 12 percent profit margin to the wholesalers was devised to extract half of it as a kickback to AAP leaders. As per the investigation carried out so far, Shri Vijay Nair, on behalf of AAP leaders has at least received kickbacks to the tune of ₹100 crore from a group called South Group (controlled by Shri Sarath Reddy, Ms K Kavitha, Shri Magunta Srinivasul Reddy). The same has been disclosed by the arrestee Shri Amit Arora in his statements.”
In another context, in the same remand report, the ED said:
“There was large-scale destruction of digital evidence to impede the investigation. As many as 36 accused or suspects had used multiple phones and later destroyed them to obliterate evidence.”
Kavitha also figured in the table of accused or suspects included in the report. Her name is listed at No 32. It said she had used six phones for using the number 6209999999 and four phones for using another number, 8985699999, and later destroyed the phones.
The CBI could also issue a notice to Kavitha under Section 41(A) if it gets any evidence of her involvement in the crime and then the agency might contemplate arresting her.
Till such time, the CBI is likely to move cautiously, trying to obtain evidence from her regarding the phones and her travel history to the national capital when the Delhi liquor policy was formulated for 2021-22.
The policy was later rescinded.
