Made painstaking efforts in Bhopal gas tragedy probe: CBI

CBI, which today came under attack from civil rights groups and certain political parties over its probe into the Bhopal gas tragedy, said it had made "painstaking efforts" in its investigation.

"The investigation included painstaking efforts by CBI to get evidence from abroad (USA) as well as extradition of Warren Anderson (the then chairman of Union Carbide Corporation of USA)," CBI spokesperson Harsh Bhal said in a statement here.

"The prosecution case was that apart from proximate reasons, there were a number of design defects and other criminally negligent operational practices which resulted in the leakage of Methyl Ico-Cyanate (MIC) and these were in the knowledge of the management and were deliberately ignored for commercial reasons," he said.

Nearly 26 years after the world's worst industrial disaster left more than 15,000 dead in the Bhopal gas tragedy, former Union Carbide India chairman Keshub Mahindra and six others were today convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment each by a court.

Civil rights activists fighting for the families of victims of the disaster called the judgement "too little, too late" and accused the prosecution and CBI of failing the victims by diluting the charges.

Bhal said the CBI had filed a charge sheet in the case on December 1, 1987 and "the court had taken cognizance on
July 6, 1988 and Warren Anderson was declared as an absconder.

"In the meantime, vide order dated February 14, 1989, the Supreme Court quashed all proceedings relating to and arising
out of Bhopal Gas disaster," he said.

"However, on a petition filed by CBI, the aforesaid order was reviewed by SC. The case was committed for trial to the court of sessions judge Bhopal on April 3, 1992," he said noting that the sessions court later framed charges against all the nine accused except the absconders Warren Anderson, UCC, USA and UCC, Hong Kong.

"Non-bailable arrest warrants were issued by CJM Bhopal and CBI moved an extradition request to the United States on September 8, 1993 for arrest and extradition of Anderson.
However, this request remains unexecuted."

Dwelling further on the efforts of the CBI, Bhal said it was the apex court which had amended the charges filed by CBI against the accused under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) with Section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence) after the defence filed a Special Leave Petition against framing of charges.

"The charges were framed under sections 304, 324, 326, 429 IPC with or without the aid of section 35 of IPC. The defence went in an appeal to the high court on April 28, 1993 against the framing of charges and the trial was stayed.

"However, the revision petition was dismissed on August 1, 1995. The defence filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against framing of charges."

"SC vide an order dated September 13, 1996, amended the
charges to section 304A, 336, 337 and 338 IPC with or without
section 35 IPC, that is mainly section 304 (culpable homicide
not amounting to murder) was replaced with section 304A IPC
(causing death by negligence)," the agency said.