Vinay Appanna, Director of AV Techno-World Co Ltd, said to have met MSM political agent Soopramanien Kistnen, only twice, i.e in June 2020. He was questioned by Azam Neerooa, the representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions, during the ongoing judicial inquiry into the death of Kistnen, at the Court of Moka.
Vinay Appanna, Director of AV Techno-World Co Ltd and brother-in-law of ex-director of the State Trading Corporation (STC), Jonathan Ramasamy, was heard at the Court of Moka on the 1st March. He was questioned by Azam Neerooa, the representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions, about how he first met Soopramanien Kistnen.
Azam Neerooa’s line of questioning also established the witness’ connections to the other protagonists of this judicial inquiry about the death of Soopramanien Kistnen.
During the hearing, it was established that Vinay Appanna met Soopramanien Kistnen for the first time in early June 2020 at his office, at La Louise, to discuss the construction of bus shelters.
When asked who introduced Soopramanien Kistnen to him, Vinay Appanna explained that he did not know him personally and that he only knew about a meeting with someone for the construction of bus shelters.
“I don’t know, maybe he called me or the office, I just know I had a meeting with someone for the construction of bus shelters,” he explained to the court.
Vinay Appanna explained that he only met Soopramanien Kistnen twice in June 2020.
The first meeting was in the presence of Deepak Bonomally. The second meeting was when Soopramanien Kistnen came to the office to drop documents about his company, as Vinay Appanna wanted to check everything before going ahead with the work. However, the negotiations did not go through, he said.
Azam Neerooa further questioned the witness, about how meticulous he is, about his dealing with other companies as he mentioned having asked Soopramanien Kistnen for his company’s documents before undertaking any further decisions.
It was also revealed that Vinay Appanna had ordered wood from the company of Neeta Nuckchhed, Neeteeselec for a house he is building in the Bagatelle region. He said, however, that he no longer remembered the amount paid to Neeteeselec for the wood. He will have to present the receipts tomorrow, 2nd March.
Vinay Appanna had told the court that he came across the company Neeteeselec through a pamphlet that had a phone number and an email address, given to him by his Service Provider, Ashvind Poonyth.
The representative of the DPP drew attention to the distinction between dealings with Neeta Nuckchhed’s company and that of Soopramanien Kistnen.
“Is your service provider an expert in wood?”, asked Azam Neerooa.
“No, but I trust him,” answered Vinay Appanna,
Vinay Appanah confirmed that his firm has won contracts up to Rs 77 million from the STC during confinement.
Azam Neerooa established the relationship between Vinay Appanna and Yogida Sawmynaden as they had both attended the same primary and secondary school. But, Vinay Appanna argued that it was only in 2015-2016, that they met again and rekindled their friendship.
Magistrate’s Ruling – Bonomally’s false testimonies
The Magistrate, Vidya Mungroo-Jugurnauth, ordered on Monday 1st of March that a police inquiry be opened for the offense of “fake testimonies” against Deepak Bonomally, under section 126 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act.
The ruling comes from a motion filed by the representative of the DPP, Azam Neerooa. He asked the court to sanction Deepak Bonomally, Director of Bo-Digital, last Thursday, on the 25th of February. Azam Neerooa, pointed out that Deepak Bonomally has “lied about his address twice before”.
Deepak Bonomally initially refused to reveal his address, but then corrected himself by declaring that he had changed his address to safeguard his security.
The representative of the DPP also caught Deepak Bonomally into another lie, saying that he had opened his office at Rue Cossigny in Quatre Bornes in October. But a lease contract presented by Neerooa showed it was signed in July.
After which Azam Neerooa referred to the section 126 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act which stipulates: “Any person who, when heard as a witness in any such case or inquiry, gives false evidence, shall commit an offense and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”