On Thursday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) searched the residences of former finance secretary, Arvind Mayaram, in an alleged corruption case. Officials said that the searches took place in Delhi and Jaipur.
The CBI registered an FIR against him under IPC sections related to criminal conspiracy and cheating and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
This comes days after he joined the Bharat Jodo Yatra led by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The corruption charges... According to news agency PTI, officials said that an FIR was filed against him and a UK-based company De La Rue International Ltd, for alleged corruption in the supply of exclusive colour shift security thread for Indian bank notes.
The CBI alleged in its FIR that Mayaram, the UK-based company, and unidentified officials of the finance ministry and RBI, hatched a criminal conspiracy to extend undue favour to the firm.
He granted 'illegal' extension to expired contract, alleges CBI: The CBI also said that during his term as finance secretary, Mayaram granted an 'illegal' three year extension to the 'expired contract' for supplying exclusive colour shift security thread without the mandatory security clearances from the home ministry.
He did not inform the then finance minister about the extensions either, alleged the agency. The FIR said that this was the fourth such extension.
What was this contract? The FIR said that the Centre had entered into an agreement with the UK-based company for the supply of colour shift security thread for Indian bank notes in 2004. This contract was extended four times until 2015.
The contract stated that the company had developed an exclusive India-specific green to blue colour shift clear text MRT machine-readable security thread. This was developed for use in Indian banknote paper as a security feature. The company held exclusive manufacturing rights for the same.
The CBI found that the company did not have a valid patent when the Centre entered into this agreement.
'False claims about patent,' alleges CBI: The CBI said that their enquiry has revealed that the company had made false claims of holding a patent during their presentation in 2002, as well as during the selection in 2004.
The CBI also said that the agreement did not have a termination clause.
(With inputs from PTI.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)