NSE scam: CBI to file supplementary chargesheet soon

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is likely to file a supplementary charge-sheet in the next few days in the National Stock Exchange (NSE) co-location case.

"The probe is still on and it is normal practice to file the charge-sheet in tranches as the probe proceeds," a person privy to the information told ET on condition of anonymity, adding that there are fresh facts in the investigation that the agency is still examining.

The CBI has found fresh evidence that may show a linkage between the appointment of Anand Subramanian as the NSE's group operating officer and the alleged co-location scam. A supplementary charge-sheet may be filed based on these new facts, said the person.


The agency filed the first charge-sheet on April 21, which focused on questions around appointment of Subramanian, according to people aware of the matter.

The CBI court is yet to take cognizance of the charge-sheet as a sanction is awaited from the competent authority, which in this case is the NSE. Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prior sanction from a competent officer is needed to prosecute a government officer, without which the court cannot take cognisance.

NSE did not respond to ET's queries till press time.

The CBI, however, has not been able to establish any direct link between former NSE CEO Chitra Ramkrishna and the alleged co-location scam or whether she had benefited in this case. The court will hear her bail application on Thursday.

However, the people cited earlier ruled out a clean chit in view of the ongoing probe and efforts to recover carefully "wiped off" electronic evidence including email links.

Ramkrishna was arrested by the CBI in March after the market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) released a report indicating alleged misuse of power by the top management of the NSE.

According to CBI officials, a quid pro quo is not a mandatory requirement to be convicted under the prevention of corruption law. If actions of an official unfairly benefit an entity, it is considered criminal misconduct under the law, they said.