New Delhi, Jan. 17: Reports in a news agency tonight quoting unnamed CBI sources suggested the agency would take fresh guard to track the money in Ottavio Quattrocchi’s two accounts in London, unfrozen almost a week ago.

In the debate over whether or not it was right for the government or the CBI to be party to a process that led to the unfreezing of the accounts which held over Rs 20 crore, the point overlooked is that after 20 years of investigation the agency does not yet have a case against Quattrocchi.

That is exactly what additional solicitor-general B. Dutta told Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which in turn issued orders for removal of the freeze in place since 2003.

Without evidence, the freeze could not have continued in any case. This is the opinion of a senior government law officer, too. Additional solicitor-general K.P. Pathak has been quoted by PTI as holding the view that “the CBI was unable to show that the funds had any link with the offence alleged. It is clear that even as regards Quattrocchi, on a parity of reasoning, there is no authentic evidence to connect him with the alleged offence and the case against him cannot stand in a court of law.”

The opinion was reportedly given to the CBI last October when the agency was considering whether to file a special leave petition against the Delhi High Court order discharging the Hinduja brothers.

Pathak did not support filing the petition. In his observations in the Quattrocchi case, he also advised against starting fresh extradition proceedings since a Malaysian court had already turned down India’s request.

“Fresh extradition proceedings against Quattrocchi would in my view be misconceived,” he had said.

The CBI’s 20-year investigation in the Bofors case is littered with tales of failure. This period also includes the years when a BJP-led government was in power. It was during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s rule that the request to freeze Quattrocchi’s accounts in London was made and the CPS acted on it.

Without the CBI at some point of time coming up with evidence that the money was linked to alleged payoffs in the Rs 64-crore Bofors gun deal, any legal system in the West would begin to ask questions why the freeze should stay in place.

However, the CBI is now planning to seek British authorities’ help to find out whether the money has been withdrawn and, if so, where it has been diverted. If the money is traced to a bank, the agency wants to send an application to the respective country to freeze the account again.

Last year, Delhi High Court threw out the CBI’s case against the Hinduja brothers.

Pathak had commented: “I was surprised to find that even in Quattrocchi’s case, the purported documents without due authentication have been relied on, and there are no other duly authenticated documents originating from Sweden available on the record.”

His remarks are a commentary on the CBI’s poor track record in gathering evidence.

After the meeting with Dutta in London, the CPS wrote in an e-mail to S.K. Sharma, the CBI director (prosecution): “Mr Dutta conveyed his instructions on behalf of the Government of India, the ministry of justice and the CBI that no useful purpose will be served by maintaining the restraint order of July 25, 2003, as there is no longer any reasonable prospect of the case against Quattrocchi proceeding to trial.

“I understand that this conclusion was reached following the judgment of Delhi High Court in May 2005 and the opinion of additional solicitor-general K.P. Pathak, both of which have been endorsed by the director of prosecution, CBI.”

Pathak had come down hard on the CBI. He had said the agency had failed in following the procedure prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act, “frustrating the entire proceedings initiated by it and in the process wasted time and public money”.

Whether the failure to collect evidence was a result of simple inefficiency or a deliberate choice can be debated.