"Mohammad Ghori attacked Prithviraj Chauhan 17 times before succeeding. You come back after one attempt to tell me you failed to contact him. What is this?"

The scene was no history class. Only the Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate's court where former Defence Advisor to the Prime Minister M.G.K. Menon had been called to give evidence. As Menon did not appear, another date was given. Again the distinguished witness did not turn up. Instead, an advocate claiming to be a standing counsel for the Union of India appeared on his behalf and moved an application seeking the deletion of his name from the list of witnesses.

"Under what provision of the law?" the Magistrate queried. The advocate mumbled that Menon was a ``very big man''. The Magistrate threatened contempt proceedings. "I have seen advocates appearing for the State, for complainants and for the accused," he observed, "but never for a witness!" He directed him to produce the witness on the next date.

But the next hearing saw a repeat of the drama with the same advocate seeking adjournment. The Magistrate told him to bring the witness to the court without delay. The advocate left but returned a little later and said Menon could not be contacted. The Magistrate warned that non-bailable warrants were in the offing. This time the advocate returned to the court with an Army officer, the additional director and a chief administrative officer of the laboratory to which the case related -- and no Menon.Spectators had started wondering what the fuss was all about. It looked suspiciously like a matter which both the accused and the summoned witness were keen to keep under wraps.

It all stemmed from a complaint of R.C. Tyagi, a scientist, alleging misappropriation of public property from a defence establishment. The amount involved was strictly peanuts in comparison to contemporary scams, and it was covered under Section 39 of the CrPC, which lays an obligation on `all citizens' to assist in investigations. That obviously included `big' men, senior public officials (like the Defence Advisor) and even judicial officers, including their lordships of the Supreme Court. Its importance? It was the subject of a joint letter addressed by 10 members of Parliament to Prime Minister Narasimha Rao in August 1995 seeking an enquiry into issues involving national security, corruption and the transparency of the judiciary, which arose from the alleged sabotage of a top-priority defence research project. There were four different official versions of the story, including two contradictory answers to parliamentary questions on the same day! All four could not evidently be correct though all could be and allegedly were wrong. Was it a muddled cover-up job?

Though Rao had assured action, there was none till his government resigned nine months later. And then a reply was sent not by the ministry but by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, an accused reporting on the result of an investigation. The DRDO, understandably, skirted the issue of what had happened to the project by invoking the Supreme Court's advice to `forgive and forget'. But it leaves nagging questions as to whether a department's refusal to lead evidence and failure to show documents summoned by a court, its filing a common affidavit with a court, stalling a judgment fixed for 1983, pleading loss of vital records and not the least, the shying away of a key witness from the stand can be countervailed by `public interest'.

At its last hearing, the court issued notices of contempt, perjury and to show cause why warrant of arrest should not be issued to the eminent witness. Meanwhile, the story continues.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.