Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Documenting Full Co-Operation with the Investigating Agency

(This is without prejudice to our contention that was is being unleashed against us is a motivated,fishing and roving inquiry with vindictive intent)


The so called issue of 'cooperation' has always sought to be deliberately distorted by advocates for the state of Gujarat, motivated by considerations quite outside the legal. Some of their cronies in the media have selectively reported this. Unfortunately the motivated propaganda was bought into by the Gujarat HC (which completely ignored the utter transparency and cooperation always extended by us. Worse still as explained by us earlier, the Gujarat HC  completely ignored detailed documentation (original account copies) and affidavits filed by us in March 2014, June 2014 and July 2014 and thereafter.

We fear that a similar disinformation campaign may be afoot now. Hence, on legal advice we have prepared a 14-15 Page Letter to the IO (KN Patel) Documenting Full Cooperation extended by us. This is attached here. After that letter was sent by us and duly acknowldeged by the IO (as can be seen in the attached copy) one more batch of documents was despatched by us and has been acknowledged by the IO.

In effect this means that  

A total of 3,954 Pages (Hard Copy)  have been supplied to the IO (this includes the 1743 pages submitted yesterday that was NOT in the longer letter to the IO. Besides  16,400 pages have been made available in Soft Copy (DVDs).

IO Acknowledgement Copies


Monday, April 6, 2015


Tue, Feb 17, 2015


Setalvad and Anand, a long fight for justice
NEW DELHI: In an environment legitimised by television channels that rush to throw mud on individuals who run foul of the establishment for standing up for rights and justice, The Citizen as a matter of editorial policy found it imperative to ask social activists and editors Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand to respond to the questions being raised by the so called ‘experts’ on television and elsewhere without caring to inform the viewer, only to condemn the activists. Excerpts of the interview are carried below.

Both Setalvad and Anand are widely perceived by informed sections of society as being pilloried by the current dispensation for the strong positions they have taken on the Gujarat violence in 2002, their strong commitment to fighting the legal cases against the perpetrators of the violence, their dedication to bring justice to those who lost entire families in violence that sent shockwaves across the world and led to Prime Minister Narendra Modi being denied a visa by the United States until he won the Lok Sabha elections.

The Supreme Court will be giving its ruling on the plea for anticipatory bail soon, but organisations, political parties, individuals from across India have been signing petitions, holding meetings, issuing statements to ensure that Setalvad and Anand are not victimised and harassed by the police and the politician. In one of the more recent statements a cross section of intellectuals Irfan Habib, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Prabhat Patnaik, Vivan Sundaram, Nilima Sheikh, Parthiv Shah, Mihir Bhattacharya, Ram Rahman, Sukumar Muralidharan said: “By way of background, we would like to recall that the Supreme Court has at least twice in past years, made adverse observations about the Gujarat state government’s campaign of vilification against Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand.

The first such instance was in 2004, after elements within the ruling party in Gujarat pressured and in other ways induced a key witness in the Best Bakery case, Zaheera Sheikh, to change her testimony so that charges of obstructing the course of justice and perjury could be brought against Teesta.

A second instance was in 2010-11, when malicious charges of exhuming the bodies of riot victims from their graves were brought and summarily dismissed as absurd by the highest court.

We are shocked at the tone of some of the media coverage, especially in some television news channels. These have made a bonfire of the basic principle of fairness and due process, which is the presumption of innocence. They have also shown more than the usual aversion to understanding issues of complexity, though these are not matters that would challenge more than the average intelligence.”

The interview with Setalvad and Anand is as below:

1. When was this Gulberg trust set up and why?

Survivors of the 2002 carnage at Gulberg society for obvious reasons could not think of living there any longer. They were trying to sell tgeir flats/bungalows at Gulberg but all they were being offered were prices far below the market rates. In this context, in 2007 Sabrang Trust mooted the idea of trying to raise funds to buy off the flats/bungalows at fair narket rates and convert the place into a Resistance Memorial in due course. Members of the society got a surveyor who estimated the total cost of the properties at around Rs.3.5 crore. The housing society passed a resolution approving the idea mooted by Sabrang Trust in late 2007. Sabrang Trust then went about mobilising donations fir the memorial but over 4 years was able to raise only Rs. 4.6 lakh from donors. This amount was a pittance compared to the estimated price of the properties at Gulberg.

2. Is it true that most of the money came from the Gulbarg families? Who else contributed to it?

Not even a rupee of the Rs.4.6 lakh was donated by any member of the housing society nor was it expected from them.

3. Was the money donated for a memorial?

As stated above Rs.4.6 lakh of the donations raised by Sabrang Trust were for the memorial. But Sabrang Trust was simultaneously working on other projects. The trust did receive substantial grants from donor agencies for specific projects other than the memorial. Such grants could only be used for activities spelt out in the agreements signed between the donor agencies and Sabrang Trust. Diverting any amount from such earmarked grants towards the memorial would have been a serious breach of trust.

4. Why was this not set up?

By 2011-12, Sabrang Trust had only managed to raise Rs.4.6 lakh.. Meanwhile, land prices had gone up substantially with the result that the amount raised was hardly 1% of the amount needed to buy the properties at Gulberg.

5. Were the donators/contributors informed and permission taken?

In November 2011, Sabrang Trust informed the Gulberg Housing Society that since it was not able to raise adequate funds, the society members should decide whatever they wished to do with their individual flats/bungalows. Accordingly, the society held a meeting where a resolution was passed that since Sabrang Trust was not able to raise sufficient funds, the members were free to dispose of their individual properties as they liked. It may be noted that the flats/bungalows had throughout remained in the possession of society members. At no stage were they required to, nor did they, hand over possession to Sabrang Trust. Donors were informed that the total donations being highly inadequate, Sabrang Trust was unable to go ahead with the proposed Memorial. A few if the donors wrote back authorising he trustees to utilise their donations (totalling Rs. 4.6 lakh only) for other activities of the trust at the discretion of the trustees. However, till date the entire amount of Rs. 4.6 lakh has been kept unutilised in the trusts bank account and is reflected in the balance sheet of the trust.

6. What exactly are the charges of embezzlement framed against you? Can you list these?

The summary of the alleged embezzlements by Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand are as follows: Between FY 2003-04 and FY 2013-14 (10 years) Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) together received a total amount of Rs. 9.7 crore. It is alleged that 39.5% of this total amount was transferred to the personal accounts of Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand. The break-up of the same according to the figures of the Investigating Officer are:

Sr No
Amount (Rs.)
% of total receipts of Sabrang Trust and CJP 
Average (over 10 years) payments/reimbursements per month
Salary/honorarium to Teesta Setalvad
Around Rs. 39,000 p.m.
The payments to Teesta Setalvad were not as trustee but for her executing projects as per signed agreements with donor agencies. 
Salary/honorarium to Javed Anand 
Around 23,500 p.m.
The payments to Teesta Setalvad were not as trustee but for her executing/administering projects as per signed agreements with donor agencies. 
Reimbursement of shared office expenses to Sabrang Communications and Publishing Pvt. Ltd. (SC&P) 
Around Rs. 1,40,000 p.m. OR an average of Rs.70,000 p.m. each for the two trusts.
Formed in 1993, Sabrang Communications was provided rent-free office space (around 700 sq ft carpet area) by Mr. Atul Setalvad, father of Teesta Setalvad. Sabrang Trust was formed in late 1995 but became active only from 2003 onwards. CJP was formed in 2002. Between 1993 and 2002, Sabrang Communications spent lakhs of rupees on office renovation, furniture and fixture, air-conditioning, 12 computers, printers, photocopier, scanners, books and videos etc. It also hired and trained a team of 10 staff members. The trustees of Sabrang Trust and CJP (other than Teesta and Javed) wanted to save on infrastructure and establishment expenses of their respective trusts. Further, the 10 member staff team (excluding Teesta and Javed had been trained in addressing the issue of communalism (Sabrang Communications published the magazine ‘Communalism Combat’). Since communalism was also a principal concern for Sabrang Trust (advocacy and secular education in schools) and CJP (legal intervention), the trustees wishing to save on staff costs also, the two trusts entered into a costs-sharing arrangement with Sabrang Communications (SC). Expenses on staff and office infrastructure were initially incurred by SC and a mutually agreed upon percentage of total expenses incurred by SC was reimbursed reimbursed by Sabrang Trust and CJP. An average monthly expense of Rs. 70,000 over 10 years by each trust on shared staff AND office expenses (electricity, telephone, mobile, internet bills, repair/maintenance/renovation/upgrading of office premise/equipments cannot be considered excessive. Not a rupee was ever charged as rent to either of the trusts, neither Teesta nor Javed benefited even by a rupee through the costs-sharing agreements through frequently reviewed and revised decisions of the other trustees. 
Cash withdrawals
Around Rs. 90,000 p.m., OR an average of Rs. 45,000 p.m. each for the two trusts.
Through his allegation the investigating officer has effectively confirmed that over the years, only 11.2% of the expenses of the trusts were incurred through cash payments, while the remaining 88.8 % was through cheque payments. No organisation in the world can operate without petty cash expenses. 
Reimbursement for expenses through credit card of Teesta Setalvad 
Around Rs. 36,500 p.m. over a 6 year period OR Rs. 18,250 p.m. each for the two trusts. 
Teesta has provided documentation to establish that only those expenses pertaining to the activities of Sabrang Trust and CJP were claimed from and reimbursed by the two trusts. No personal expenses incurred through her personal credit card was ever charged to the trusts. The same has also been confirmed by the auditors of Sabrang Trust and auditors of CJP. 
Reimbursement for expenses through credit card of Javed Anand
Around Rs. 4,600 p.m. over a 6 year period OR Rs. 2,300 p.m. each for the two trusts. 
Javed has provided documentation to establish that only those expenses pertaining to the activities of Sabrang Trust and CJP were claimed from and reimbursed by the two trusts. No personal expenses incurred through his personal credit card was ever charged to the trusts. The same has also been confirmed by the auditors of Sabrang Trust and auditors of CJP. 
Total amounts alleged transferred/utilized for personal expenses by Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand 

Total funds received by Sabrang Trust and CJP between FY 2003-04 and FY 2013-14. 

It is evident that only Sr Nos 1 & 2 are payments to Teesta Setalvad (4.8% of total funds received) and Javed Anand (2.9% of total funds received). The remaining reimbursements and cash withdrawals have in no way been to the benefit of either or both of them.

7. Many of these were investigated and cleared. When? Please elaborate

The FIR to begin with alleged that we had raised huge funds in the name of the Gulberg Memorial, gave nothing to Gulberg society members and transferred huge amounts of the funds raised to our personal accounts. When we challenged this through our affidavit, pointing out that in all only Rs. 4.62 lakh could be raised by us which was highly inadequate, the original allegation has been put on the back burner and the emphasis now is general misappropriation of trust funds.

8. Is it true you paid your credit card expenses with a trust cheque? If yes, how did you make such a mistake?

Details pertaining to reimbursements for expenses on activities of trust are given above. The reimbursement by the trusts for the expenses so incurred were done in one of two ways: (1) Teesta/Javed paid the entire monthly bill; the trusts later issued a reimbursement cheque in the name of Teesta/Javed; (2) The monthly bill was disaggregated into personal expenses, Sabrang Trust expenses and CJP expenses and three separate cheques were issued for a single month’s credit card bill according to expenses. Over the years, our auditors did not have any preference between the two reimbursement options. They only ensured that no expenses of a personal nature were charged to the trusts.

Witch Hunt Classic

Teesta Setalvad victim of witch-hunt, say activists
Omar Rashid

‘Facts twisted in an effort to malign her work’

Terming corruption charges against Teesta Setalvad baseless, civil society on Tuesday stood behind the social activist and her husband Javed Anand.
If BJP president Amit Shah, who faced grievous murder charges in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, could get the luxury of not having to appear before court, why were Ms. Setalvad and Mr. Anand being subjected to a “witch-hunt” over charges of financial corruption, activists in Mumbai asked.
After the Gujarat High Court rejected their anticipatory bail plea on charges of embezzlement of funds meant for the 2002 Gujarat riot victims, the Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Ms. Setalvad and Mr. Anand till February 19. “There is no doubt in my mind that the persecution is because of the work they have done in bringing the guilty to book. It is our duty to see that the witch-hunt doesn’t go on,” said noted documentary filmmaker Anand Patwardhan.
The activists, who included Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, cited a number of criminal cases pursued by Ms. Setalvad’s NGO in Gujarat, including the Naroda Patiya massacre during the 2002 riots. .
Pointing to a worrying trend for social activism under the Narendra Modi government, Mr. Gandhi said the state was sending the strong message that “if you stand up for rights, honesty or ethics, you will be persecuted.”
Mr. Gandhi also expressed concern over Ms. Setalvad’s safety if she were to go into custody. Pointing to the hate campaign against Ms. Setalvad on social media, Mr. Gandhi said he faced a barrage of obscene response after he tweeted in her support
“Will the government ensure their safety? From the people who are in jail due to the efforts of Teesta and Anand? As we can see in Gujarat, the accused have been rewarded. How does the state ensure that it doesn’t fall prey to such strong-arm tactics?”

Support pours in for social activists Teesta Setalvad, Javed Anand

| Age Correspondent| mumbai
Social activists, journalists and filmmakers came forward in support of activist couple Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand and questioned why their judicial interrogation was necessary as demanded by the Gujarat police.
Ms Setalvad and Mr Anand have been alleged to have been involved in financial fraud and the Supreme Court, till February 19, has stayed their arrest. Filmmaker Anand Patwardhan, writer Tushar Gandhi, activist Sandhya Gokhale and journalist Dilip D’Souza held a press conference to appeal to the people to support Ms Setalvad and Mr Anand on Tuesday.
Pointing at the differential treatment meted out by the Gujarat court, Mr Patwardhan said, “Amit Shah was implicated in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsi Prajapati encounter cases, but was allowed not to attend court proceedings. However, in the case of Teesta and Anand, the police is demanding judicial interrogation. There is no rule of law in the Gujarat court.”
A complaint was filed in Gujarat, alleging that Subrung Trust and an NGO CJP were involved in the fraudulent use of donations worth Rs 4.32 lakh meant for the Museum of Resistance in memory of victims of the 2002 Gujarat riots. The couple runs the trust and the NGO. However, Sandhya Gokhale refuted the charges and said the money was still lying unused in the bank. “The funds and expenditure sheet has been given by them, which shows no cheating at all. In fact, the money that was not used for the museum is still lying in the banks. All the papers pertaining to it have been given to the police,” she said.
Questioning the intention of the Gujarat police, Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, said the move is threatening to the democratic fabric of the country. “We are seeing tyranny being unleashed on the pretext of legal action. If the police arrests Teesta and Anand, will they ensure protection to the victims of riots?,” he said, referring to their NGO’s work in getting the guilty convicted. He said he was subjected to abusive reactions for tweeting in favour of the couple in the case. Mr D’Souza made it clear that they were not against the police probe, but raised doubts over the necessity for custodial interrogation.

Scribes express solidarity with Teesta Setalvad

NNWN / New Delhi,2015-02-17,13:16:21
The Gujarat Police's move to arrest Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, which was stalled by the Supreme Court, was criticized by the participants at a discussion held at the Press Club of India in Delhi on Monday. The arrest of the couple was stayed by the Supreme Court till February 19, the participants said that the move was nothing but "the harassment and victimization" of activists fighting for justice in the Gujarat carnage cases. It's a warning to all about "the consequences of speaking up", said the participants. In fact, this  was the consensus at the meeting where participants expressed solidarity with Setalvad and Anand, both of whom are activists as well as journalists.
Participating in the discussion, the speakers questioned the Gujarat Police's insistence on "custodial interrogation".  Senior advocate Indira Jaising stated that there was no need for custodial interrogation as "the primary evidence" in the case involving allegations of cheating and breach of trust was "documentary".  The speakers also deplored the manner in which the case had been booked. Since their earlier attempts to "frame" Setalvad in the Best Bakery and illegal exhumation cases had been rebuffed by the Supreme Court in 2004 and 2012, the Gujarat Police, Jaising alleged, filed the embezzlement case in February 2014 after the SIT report exonerating Narendra Modi had been endorsed by a magistrate in Ahmedabad. Whatever the motives behind the case booked in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections, Setalvad and Anand were opposing not the investigation but the demand for custodial interrogation. Press Club president Anand Sahay raised concerns about the manner in which sections of the media were "distorting" the facts involved.  The editor of a Hindi daily, Om Thanvi, found it "suspicious" that the Gujarat Police landed up at Setalvad's residence in Mumbai within minutes of the Gujarat high court's rejection of her anticipatory bail plea.

Activists fear for Teesta, Javed's life if arrested

Last Updated: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 18:57 hrs
In the photo from left: Tushar Gandhi, Dilip D'souza, Anand Patwardhan and Sandhya Gokhale at the press conference to express solidarity with Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand. Photo by: Satyen K Bordoloi
“If they get arrested, how will we ensure that they will be protected from those who they have put in jail,” asked writer Tushar Gandhi, the great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi at a packed press conference at the Press Club, Mumbai. The conference was called by civil society to present evidence to prove the innocence of Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand against cases which they claimed was fabricated.
On February 12, 2015 the High Court of Gujarat passed an order denying anticipatory bail to Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand in the matter of an FIR pertaining to misappropriation of funds from an NGO they worked for and filed by the Gujarat police against them.

A special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India against the said order within hours after which the court granted them interim relief and the matter will be further heard on 19th February 2015.

"Teesta and Javed have fully cooperated with the investigations. They have appeared before the Ahmedabad police twice. They have furnished 15,000 vouchers of all the expenses made by Sabrang trust. They have even put all the evidence in the public domain for all to see and judge. One wonders why the Gujarat Police still wants them in custody. We fear there is ulterior motive in this arrest because if they wanted proof they have it all," said activist Sandhya Gokhale.

Documentary filmmaker Anand Patwardhan alleged that the Modi government is bent on punishing them for their "exemplary work" in getting those responsible for violence in Gujarat 2002, behind bars. Insinuating the hand of the Modi government in this case, he said, "Since Modi has become PM, many accused jailed in false encounter cases by the courts, have been coming out. Some have got bail, others have been promoted. On the other hand Javed and Teesta have been punished. It is our duty to stand by Teesta and Javed and prevent this witch hunt and also ensure that the guilty of Gujarat 2002 are punished."

Writer Dilip D'souza drew parallels with the case of Dr. Binayak Sen of Chhattisgarh. Giving example of a government’s own document found in Binayak’s computer which the police presented as irrefutable evidence against him, Dilip said, "So thin was the evidence against Binayak Sen that they had to make it up. They thought they could get away and they did. These have taught me to be terminally suspicious of every evidence. It is our duty as citizens to view evidence suspiciously and I would urge us all to examine the evidence presented by the police well."

Tushar Gandhi was direct in his criticism of the ruling government. "I am from a generation that remembers the Emergency well. At least Indira Gandhi had the decency of proclaiming Emergency before unleashing her tyranny. Today it is being unleashed without warning. This case is an opportunity to sound an alarm before we slip down into another emergency like situation."

A powerpoint presentation with charts and figures was shown to the press which gave details of the money Teesta and Javed have been accused of embezzling. “The money that is said to have been appropriated by the two is all there with the NGO, fully intact,” said Tushar Gandhi.

(Satyen K Bordoloi is an independent film critic, writer and photojournalist based in Mumbai. His writings on cinema, culture and politics have appeared nationally and globally.)

Teesta, husband are innocent: Activists

Wednesday, February 18, 2015
By A Staff Reporter
Activists support Teesta Setalvad and husband Javed Anand, whom the Gujarat Police wants to arrest
At a press conference organised by the NGO, Hum Azaadiyon Ke Haq Mein against the Gujarat Police's move to arrest Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, it was unanimously decided that the arrest is harassment and victimisation of activists fighting for justice for the Gujarat carnage victims.

The activists expressed solidarity with Setalvad and Anand, both of whom are activists as well as journalists. They also said that this is a warning for people who come forward to speak up about injustice.

Tushar A. Gandhi, activist and grandson of Mahatma Gandhi said, “Justice should be served, the amount of the account which the Gujarat Police has held them for is wrong and the current figures which have been disclosed to the police are also included in the account. The treatment given to Setalvad and Javed is threatening and a clear indication that if we come forward and speak out, our mouths will be shut. Have we entered an era where we cannot live in an  environment of justice? There have been numerous fake encounters in Gujarat and those who were arrested for the same are being released one by one.”

In January 2014, a complaint was filed by former residents of Gulberg Society, and the Gujarat police had booked Feroze Khan Pathan, Teesta Setalvad and others for allegedly taking away Rs.1.51 crore collected for a riot museum.

Residents had also said they were restrained from selling their property on the promise that NGOs would buy them. Citing lack of funds, the promise was not fulfilled.

Setalvad and her NGO 'Citizens for Justice and Peace' were vocal in bringing the Gujarat riot cases to the Supreme Court. In the Best Bakery case, the apex court had indicted the then Modi government of Gujarat as 'Modern day Neros' who looked the other way when the Best Bakery was burning.

Teesta’s supporters say Gujarat cops on witch hunt

MUMBAI: A group of social activists have called the Gujarat police's insistence on taking Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand in custody as witch-hunt. Setalvad and Anand, through their NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), had secured convictions of several accused, including some senior police officers, in Gujarat riots (2002) and fake encounter cases and, therefore, the activists alleged, the Gujarat police wants to arrest them and send a message to everyone who dares to question injustice and atrocities perpetrated on citizens. The Gujarat police wants to take Setalvad and Anand in custody to question the alleged embezzlement of funds collected for a museum in memory of victims of the Gujarat carnage 2002. The SC has granted them interim bail till February 19 and the activists feared physical harm to the duo if they were denial further bail and sent in police custody. "This is witch hunt and it must stop," they demanded.

"It is wrongly charged that Teesta and Javed embezzled the funds received for a museum at Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad while the truth is that the total amount of Rs 4.6 lakh received for the museum fund is intact. None of the authorities like income tax, home ministry, charity commissioner, auditors or donor agencies ever alleged any irregularities in the accounts submitted by Sabrang Trust and CJP," said Sandhya Gokhale of Hum Azaadiyon Ke Haq Mein which organized the press conference on Tuesday. She also alleged that the Gujarat police have aggressively pursued the "embezzlement" case ever since a magistrate court gave clean chit to then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi in the case filed by Zaki Jaffery, wife of former Congress MP Ehsaan Jaffery who was killed along with 69 others in Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002.

"Sever senior police officers involved in fake encounter cases went to jail because of the sustained fights Teesta and Javed carried. Now many of them are out on bail and some of them reinstated and promoted. We appeal to people to rise against harassment of voices of justice and peace," said film-maker Anand Patwardhan.

Full COOPERATION has alwats been extended:-The statement of finances shared with the Courts

The statement of finances shared with the Courts
Time period of ten years FY 2003-04 to 2013-2014

Total funds received by Sabrang Trust and CJP between FY 2003-04 and FY 2013-14.
Rs. 9,74,75,100
Total amounts alleged transferred/utilized for personal expenses by TeestaSetalvad and JavedAnand
Rs. 3,85,00,896 (39.5%)
Actual summary of the “alleged embezzlements by TeestaSetalvad and JavedAnand”
Sr No
Amount (Rs.)
% of total receipts
Average (over 10 years) payments/reimbursements  per month
Reimbursement of shared office expenses to Sabrang Communications and Publishing Pvt. Ltd. (SC&P)
Average of Rs.70,000 p.m. each for the two trusts.
Cash withdrawals for both trusts
Average of Rs. 45,000 p.m. each for the two trusts.
Salary/honorarium to TeestaSetalvad
Average ofRs. 39,000 p.m.
Salary/honorarium to JavedAnand
Average of 23,500 p.m.
Reimbursement for expenses through credit card of TeestaSetalvad
Rs. 18,250 p.m. each for the two trusts over a period of six years
Reimbursement for expenses through credit card of JavedAnand
Rs. 2,300 p.m. each for the two trusts over a period of six years
Salary/honorarium to Tamara Setalvad

Besides items 3 and 4 (which are salaries for Teesta and Javed) the rest are all expenses of the two trusts.
Can this be termed cheating, misappropriation of trust, embezzlement?
Or this harassment and vendetta
Released by “Hum AzaadiyonkeHaq Mein”, Mumbai

Why do police insist on getting custody of Teesta and Javed

Press Release:
Curious and Spurious case of Gulberg Museum of Resistence:
Why do police insist on getting custody of Teesta and Javed

On 15-16th December 2014 and 5-6th January 2015 :
Both Teesta and Javed appeared before Ahmadabad police and responded to all their queries. This was the first time ever they were asked to present themselves for questioning.

The complaint is filed with respect of fraudulent use of donations collected for the "Museum of Resistance" of amount   Rs. 432,460.00.
This amount continues to be in the accounts of Sabrang trust and has not been spent on anything as of now.

All the accounts of Sabrang trust as well as CJP have been submitted for all these years to Charity Commissioner, Home Ministry, Income Tax authorities, donor agencies and two sets of auditors. None of the above ever raised any objections to the accounts submitted.

Sequence of events with respect of current criminal complaint filed before Ahmadabad police and subsequent denial of anticipatory bail application by Gujarat High Court

14th Jan 2008
Subrang trust gave letter to Gulberg Society
Subrang offered to buy all the premises in Gulberg Society at market price with idea of building a Museum of Resistance in memory of victims and survivors of Gujarat Carnage 2002
Fund was to be raised for this purpose once the Society agrees to the same.
29thjune 2008
Gulberg Society passed resolution agreeing with the Sabrang proposal
Gulberg society would find out the market value and inform Sabrang about the same.

Till Nov-12
Sabrang tries to raise funds through individual donors in India and abroad

Total donations received of Rupees 432460.00
10th Nov 2012
Sabrang informs Gulberg Society its inability to raise funds.
The Society by its Resolution dated November 10, 2012, scrapped the idea of museum and resolved that all members of the society were free to sell or dispose of their tenements.
The collected donations are too inadequate. The donors give consent to use the money for purposes of various cases arising out of 2002 massacre fought in different court

21st Feb 2013
Police receive a fraudulent letter on behalf of Gulberg society complaining misappropriation of  the fund raised for the Museum
One Firozkhan Saeedkhan Pathan, who was a resident of Gulbarg Society filed a complaint, alleging that Sabrang Trust and Citizens for Justice and Peace have received foreign and local donations in the name of providing financial and legal assistance to the riot victims and to develop Gulbarg Society into a museum and have further allegedly misappropriated the funds so received
The complaint is written using forged letter head of the society
13th March 2013
Gulberg Society writes to police complaining about the above referred forged letter

13th March 2013
Subrang trusts writes to police complaining about the above referred forged letter
Letter March 13, 2013 to the Joint Commissioner of Police, denies the allegations leveled against them, clarifying their stand regarding the purpose of their organization, the donations received by them and the suspected conspiracy by their former employee Raees Khan Pathan against them. 

18th March 2013
Deputy Commissioner of police writes to Gulberg Society about the complaint received
Informs them about the complaint pending against the Teesta and others and  directs them to maintain status quo regarding the Society.

18th March 2013
Police write to Teesta Setalvald about the above mentioned complaint received.
The police asks Teesta to furnish certain documents and information regarding the Trust and the allegations made against them

26th March 2013
Teesta agains writes to Police about the fraudulent complaint
Reply clearly states that there was no misappropriation of funds and the accounts of Trust were mandatorily and statutorily audited.

8th May 2013
Police once again write to Teesta about the complaint
Investigating Officer, asks to submit answers and documents to the questions posed in their earlier letter dated 18.03.2013.

20th May 2013
Teesta sends them reply
Explains the root-cause of the mala-fide complaint filed against them and clarified the position of donations collected by the Sabrang Trust.

There is no further communication in this regards for next 9 months

26th December 2013
Magistrate court gives clean chit to Mr Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat in the case filed by Zakia Jaffery wife of late Mr Ewhsaan Jaffery, who was killed in Gulberg Society along with 69 others on February 28th 2002

4th Jan 2014
FIR U/S 406, 420, 120B, I.T 72A filed against Teesta, Javed and two others which includes son of Mr Ehsaan Jaffery

10th Jan 2014
Bombay High court grants as interim protection to all against the arrest

20th Jan 2014
Police letter to teesta asking for certain Documents in 7 days

21st an 2014
IDBI and Union Accounts of the Trust, as well as personal accounts of Teesta and Jved are frozen on basis of letter from Gujarat Police

22nd Jan 2014
Teesta and Javed write to Banks and asking for letter sent by the Police.

31st Jan 2014
Bombay High Court grants Transit Bail

21st feb 2014
Supreme Court SLP filed

22nd Feb 2014
Session Court Anticipatory bail application filed

24th Feb 2014
Supreme Court extends protection till 31st March 2014

23rd March 2014
Sessions Judge by its order dated 25.3.2014, rejected the  Anticipatory Bail Application.

26th March 2014

Moved the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat challenging the abovementioned order dated 25.3.2014 by way of Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 4677 of 2014.

12th Feb 2015
The Hon’ble High Court pronouced judgement in the open court rejecting the application of the Petitioners

Feb 2015
Approach Supreme Court Matter being heard in Supreme Court

Released by “Hum Azaadiyon ke Haq Mein”, Mumbai