CHENNAI, Aug 3: The Central Bureau of Investigation today charged in a city court that the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (Igcar), Kalpakkam, had given wrong information to the media that material seized from some suspects recently was not uranium, though Igcar had confirmed that it was uranium in its report to the CBI.Opposing bail petitions of three suspects arrested by the CBI, in what it claims is a case of theft of uranium from unknown sources, the CBI's prosecutor argued that those at Igcar appeared to be afraid of the case and had given a press release that the material was ilmenite and not uranium.
‘‘We have never stated that the material was stolen from Kalpakkam, the CBI counsel said. Even though Igcars final report was sufficient for continuing investigation, the CBI was seeking a second opinion from another institution.
The prosecutor opposed grant of bail to the accused - GR Arun, 30, a post-graduate in structural engineering, S Murthy, 34, a Siddha medicine practitioner, and CMohan, 38, a resident of Erode, Tamil Nadu - saying they might tamper with evidence if given bail.
After hearing counsel for the accused and the CBI, tenth metropolitan magistrate R Krishnamurthy put off his order on the bail petitions till August six.
The prosecutor submitted that while Igcars preliminary report, which said the material had the presence of U-235 and U-238, both isotopes of uranium, he abundance being about 1.40 to 2.20 per cent, was sent to the CBI in the original, the final report was only faxed to the CBI office.
The final report, he claimed, also confirmed the presence of uranium in the seized material, contrary to the Igcars media release claiming that both uranium and thorium were totally absent in it, and it was just ilmenite, with some trace of manganese.
When the prosecutor said the Igcar was yet to furnish the original final report, the magistrate wanted to know why the CBI did not make any endeavour to get the report.
Counsel for the accused said the three were entitledto bail, as the prosecution was not sure whether the seized material was uranium, and the whole investigation appeared to be directionless.
A defence lawyer said the material contained only about two per cent of uranium, according to one report, and less than 20 million parts per million (PPM), that is, below detectable limits, according to another. The atomic energy act did not view possession of small quantities as a serious offence, and the CBI was magnifying the case.
There were grave doubts about the prosecution claim that uranium worth crores of rupees was stolen, he said, adding the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubts.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
