'I Have No Documents To Prove That Rent Was Paid To Young India': Subramanian Swamy Deposes In National Herald Case

The statement has come in the ongoing proceedings for the National Herald case, wherein Swamy has accused Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi of criminal misappropriation of funds.

The BJP leader has also claimed that the Congress party granted an interest-free loan of Rs. 90.25 crore to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), owner of the National Herald newspaper.

In today's proceedings, Senior Advocate RS Cheema, who was appearing for Young India Limited, cross examined Swami on two major allegations.

The cross examination was focused on questioning Swamy about the statements he had made in his examination-in chief, wherein he had made the following claims:

The Income Tax department initiated an investigation against Young India Limited, only after the complaint was filed by him

A sum of ₹ 60 lacs per month as rent, which is accrued to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), in fact goes to the owners of Young India Limited

Mr Cheema asked Mr Swamy as to whether he can produce any evidence that goes to prove this allegation regarding the figure of ₹ 60 lacs per month being given to Young India Limited.

Mr Swamy answered by saying that he has no documentary evidence to prove this allegation. However, he went on to clarify by saying that his allegation is based on some oral evidence he had received from the Ministry of External Affairs. He said:

'I have no documents or evidence to show as to how much rent was paid to Young India Limited. Such information is not essential to my case. I was informed that some space in Herald House has been rented out to MEA for running a passport office. Since, Young India owns 99% of stakes in AJL, I did not examine as to whether the rental amount was specifically flowing to the accounts of Young India.'

Mr Swamy further stated that he believes that Young India and AJL are the same when it comes to decision making.

Mr Cheema then asked Mr Swamy as to how did he become privy to the investigation conducted by the Income Tax department.

Mr Swamy replied by saying that he had written a letter to the then Finance Minister who had subsequently transferred it to the Department of Revenue Intelligence and Department of Income Tax. The same letter was referred to as a 'complaint' by him during the course of these proceedings.

Further, he also mentioned that neither did he participate nor was he privy to the investigation conducted by the Income Tax department.

At this point, Mr Cheema asked Mr Swamy to produce the two complaints, one sent to IT Department and other to Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, that he mentioned in his earlier deposition. However, Swamy could not produce these complaints before the court.

Consequently, Mr Cheema informed the court that he cannot proceed with the cross examination until the said complaints are brought on record.

On this request, the court directed Mr Swamy to produce both the complaints on the next date of hearing which is scheduled to be on March 21.