Harping on the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) naming Italian middleman Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Bofors kickback scandal, the Bharatiya Janata Party has posed seven questions to prime minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi on how the entire government machinery was put to his service to bail him out at every stage.

"All this because he enjoyed high patronage owing to his proximity to the Gandhi family, particularly Sonia Gandhi, and hence the need to reopen Quattrocchi case for a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) that can unveil the CBI's cover-ups," BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad told a press conference in New Delhi on Tuesday.

He sought answers to following questions:

-- Why Quattrocchi was allowed to run away from India in July 1993 to avoid arrest after the supreme court rejected Win Chadha’s plea for quashing the letters rogatory sent to Sweden? (P V Narasimha Rao was prime minister then).

-- When the NDA was in power in 1998, for the first time a charge-sheet was filed and in November 1999 and the trial court issued arrest warrant against Quattrocchi and other accused. He approached the supreme court for quashing of arrest warrant and in spite of the court asking him to appear before the CBI he refused to appear.

-- In July 2003, at the request of the NDA government the UK froze Quattrocchi's bank account in which taxpayers’ money paid as kickback has been deposited. Very surprisingly when the UPA came to power, based upon a collusive legal advice under the supervision of the then law minister Hansraj Bhardwaj, in January 2006, the then Additional Solicitor General B. Dutta went to London and falsely represented before the Authorities that no case is pending against Quattrocchi and the account be de-freezed. It was done accordingly and huge amount of taxpayers’ money was withdrawn. Under whose pressure this was done?

-- In 2005, the then Attorney General refused CBI permission to appeal against the Delhi high court order exonerating Hinduja’s involvement in the deal. Why it was done, when all previous orders of Delhi high court in Bofors matters were set a side by supreme court with strong disapproval?

-- The same Attorney General again gave a collusive advice that because Delhi high court order has become final, therefore there is no point in continuing the red corner notice against Quattrocchi or the proceeding. This in spite of the fact that even in Hinduja’s case, Quattrocchi’s matter was not considered at all. Under whose pressure these collusive advice were given?

-- In the court at Argentina, deliberate delay was made in not filing appeal because of the time taken in alleged translation of documents into Spanish and he was allowed to escape.

-- In September 2009, the Centre conveyed to the supreme court about its decision to withdraw case against Quattrocchi. Under whose advice?